Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
boomervoncannon

The powers that be at GrapeCard need to play Atlas more

Recommended Posts

The powers that be at Atlas really should play the game more than whatever amount that they do.  The most active, loyal, and dedicated players so far in the 7 months since Atlas's launch have been repeatedly given the impression that those calling the shots do not play the game much if at all. I am not talking about design choices that split the community, those have their supporters and detractors. I am talking about design choices that leave any experienced player scratching their head wondering how anyone at Grapeshot ever thought *insert your favorite dumb idea here* was a good idea.

Examples include, but are not limited to:

-Insanely over the top rent prices for player shops that render them pointless.

-Initial spawn rates of sotd's and hostile creatures that made play for the average player insanely difficult.

-Storm frequency and damage out of all proportion to reality that made travel a perilous crapshoot which could cause players to lose tons of time and resources invested in ships and everything on them to be lost due to unavoidable storms which sprang up with little to no warning.

-Unnecessarily complicated land claim and retention mechanics which practically invite griefing of other players.

-Skill mechanics that require the ability to craft an item in order to be able to use it. In any game purporting to support ingame economy, this is unbelievably dumb.

Despite the fact some of these things have been corrected (others over corrected), these and other design choices have left the playerbase wondering if those calling the shots at GrapeCard ever actually log in and play the game they're creating. If they don't, they should. If they do, perhaps they need to do so more often, or interact with other players more when they do. If they are actually doing both these things, we might all be screwed. Because honestly, even though the game has it's moments and is fun enough to win my time, there are more than one or two calls here that are "should have died on the brainstorming table" bad. Yes, the players in an Early Access game are here to provide feedback and input, but the needed level of input and feedback should start somewhere above, not at "fire is hot."

I don't care who it is, but whoever is making the decisions that lead to these things really ought to spend more time in the game. Or at least stop making design choices so facepalm worthy as to give the impression they never do. This is not my first EA rodeo, but it is the first one to make me wonder if the people making it ever play it.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I will second that, I also think a lot of their input comes from a (small part) of the player base that they are listening to a bit to much. Trying too hard to please everyone and making stupid decisions because of it.

The ones that scream the loudest are not the majority, they are just the loudest.

Secondly I will just say I agree, and the developers seem to be walking around with the blueprints for a good game, but have not leveled up to the point that they are actually able to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will third this because I see a lot of  erosion of the player base on EU PVE. People that have played a lot are walking away from the game. I have played for the last 2 days at my normal time and been the only one in my grid at L9. Normally there would be about 7 or 8. What really made me scratch my head concerning management though is when Dollie said this in our “Don’t Raze Us” thread: 

Im a little confused on one specific aspect in relation to PvE brought up by a couple of posters though. I've seen examples of an island owner leaving or going awol and thus leaving settlers open to being wiped. Wouldn't those settlers just continue to pay the upkeep on the claim to keep it secure in that case? (aside from waiting to jump and claim it themselves of course). I'm not quite understanding how people can just "lose" a claim. 

With all due respect to those running the show, why do players need to explain this? Are there so many moving parts in a game like this that it is difficult to grasp them all or do they just need to play more as Boomer said? Usually the architect of a game understands the implications of rule changes or at least what game mechanics are working. Oh well, it is what it is. None of the answers really matter anyway because 1) early access and 2) I definitely got my monies worth out of Atlas. But I so hate lost potential of something that could be great.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm polls could be made where you have to vote with your steam acc logged. Show results with an agreed, disagreed and no vote percentage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how common sense posts just seem to hang out, but the whiner threads go on forever.

Should have thrown in some waaa waaa text for good measure I guess @Boomer :classic_huh::classic_sad:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, boomervoncannon said:

The powers that be at Atlas really should play the game more than whatever amount that they do.  The most active, loyal, and dedicated players so far in the 7 months since Atlas's launch have been repeatedly given the impression that those calling the shots do not play the game much if at all. I am not talking about design choices that split the community, those have their supporters and detractors. I am talking about design choices that leave any experienced player scratching their head wondering how anyone at Grapeshot ever thought *insert your favorite dumb idea here* was a good idea.

Examples include, but are not limited to:

-Insanely over the top rent prices for player shops that render them pointless.

-Initial spawn rates of sotd's and hostile creatures that made play for the average player insanely difficult.

-Storm frequency and damage out of all proportion to reality that made travel a perilous crapshoot which could cause players to lose tons of time and resources invested in ships and everything on them to be lost due to unavoidable storms which sprang up with little to no warning.

-Unnecessarily complicated land claim and retention mechanics which practically invite griefing of other players.

-Skill mechanics that require the ability to craft an item in order to be able to use it. In any game purporting to support ingame economy, this is unbelievably dumb.

Despite the fact some of these things have been corrected (others over corrected), these and other design choices have left the playerbase wondering if those calling the shots at GrapeCard ever actually log in and play the game they're creating. If they don't, they should. If they do, perhaps they need to do so more often, or interact with other players more when they do. If they are actually doing both these things, we might all be screwed. Because honestly, even though the game has it's moments and is fun enough to win my time, there are more than one or two calls here that are "should have died on the brainstorming table" bad. Yes, the players in an Early Access game are here to provide feedback and input, but the needed level of input and feedback should start somewhere above, not at "fire is hot."

I don't care who it is, but whoever is making the decisions that lead to these things really ought to spend more time in the game. Or at least stop making design choices so facepalm worthy as to give the impression they never do. This is not my first EA rodeo, but it is the first one to make me wonder if the people making it ever play it.

Just a little insight really quick. On Twitter one day Ced(ark dev) said they played in the first few months but it had been years since they had played ark. In the past I would also see on the dev tracker that some of them were playing fortnite(not kidding).

so based of the experience I have had I would say that no they do not play the game. Ced is also one of the awesome devs so I am pretty sure that any of them that are not awesome may very well have not even played a day.

just putting it out there.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, boomervoncannon said:

The powers that be at Atlas really should play the game more than whatever amount that they do.  The most active, loyal, and dedicated players so far in the 7 months since Atlas's launch have been repeatedly given the impression that those calling the shots do not play the game much if at all. I am not talking about design choices that split the community, those have their supporters and detractors. I am talking about design choices that leave any experienced player scratching their head wondering how anyone at Grapeshot ever thought *insert your favorite dumb idea here* was a good idea.

Examples include, but are not limited to:

-Insanely over the top rent prices for player shops that render them pointless.

-Initial spawn rates of sotd's and hostile creatures that made play for the average player insanely difficult.

-Storm frequency and damage out of all proportion to reality that made travel a perilous crapshoot which could cause players to lose tons of time and resources invested in ships and everything on them to be lost due to unavoidable storms which sprang up with little to no warning.

-Unnecessarily complicated land claim and retention mechanics which practically invite griefing of other players.

-Skill mechanics that require the ability to craft an item in order to be able to use it. In any game purporting to support ingame economy, this is unbelievably dumb.

Despite the fact some of these things have been corrected (others over corrected), these and other design choices have left the playerbase wondering if those calling the shots at GrapeCard ever actually log in and play the game they're creating. If they don't, they should. If they do, perhaps they need to do so more often, or interact with other players more when they do. If they are actually doing both these things, we might all be screwed. Because honestly, even though the game has it's moments and is fun enough to win my time, there are more than one or two calls here that are "should have died on the brainstorming table" bad. Yes, the players in an Early Access game are here to provide feedback and input, but the needed level of input and feedback should start somewhere above, not at "fire is hot."

I don't care who it is, but whoever is making the decisions that lead to these things really ought to spend more time in the game. Or at least stop making design choices so facepalm worthy as to give the impression they never do. This is not my first EA rodeo, but it is the first one to make me wonder if the people making it ever play it.

Ah, something else I forgot but I believe is extremely important. Ced had also said one day that jeremy(now with grapeshot) didn’t  let the devs talk to each other. I told Ced that was messed up and that shouldn’t happen.

if the atlas devs aren’t able to talk to each other that would also make sense why there is mixed and sometimes conflicting information on different media platforms.

if you haven’t noticed ark is doing pretty well right now. Ced has also been a lot more free to speak to the public and the different teams seem to be working together now because a lot is getting fixed.

i am starting to put things together that maybe jeremy is running things the way he ran ark. This is still a theory but if I found this out to be true it would automatically make everything make perfect sense.

as well as help you understand why certain decisions get made that don’t make sense

Edited by Realist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, boomervoncannon said:

The powers that be at Atlas really should play the game more than whatever amount that they do.  The most active, loyal, and dedicated players so far in the 7 months since Atlas's launch have been repeatedly given the impression that those calling the shots do not play the game much if at all. I am not talking about design choices that split the community, those have their supporters and detractors. I am talking about design choices that leave any experienced player scratching their head wondering how anyone at Grapeshot ever thought *insert your favorite dumb idea here* was a good idea.

Examples include, but are not limited to:

-Insanely over the top rent prices for player shops that render them pointless.

-Initial spawn rates of sotd's and hostile creatures that made play for the average player insanely difficult.

-Storm frequency and damage out of all proportion to reality that made travel a perilous crapshoot which could cause players to lose tons of time and resources invested in ships and everything on them to be lost due to unavoidable storms which sprang up with little to no warning.

-Unnecessarily complicated land claim and retention mechanics which practically invite griefing of other players.

-Skill mechanics that require the ability to craft an item in order to be able to use it. In any game purporting to support ingame economy, this is unbelievably dumb.

Despite the fact some of these things have been corrected (others over corrected), these and other design choices have left the playerbase wondering if those calling the shots at GrapeCard ever actually log in and play the game they're creating. If they don't, they should. If they do, perhaps they need to do so more often, or interact with other players more when they do. If they are actually doing both these things, we might all be screwed. Because honestly, even though the game has it's moments and is fun enough to win my time, there are more than one or two calls here that are "should have died on the brainstorming table" bad. Yes, the players in an Early Access game are here to provide feedback and input, but the needed level of input and feedback should start somewhere above, not at "fire is hot."

I don't care who it is, but whoever is making the decisions that lead to these things really ought to spend more time in the game. Or at least stop making design choices so facepalm worthy as to give the impression they never do. This is not my first EA rodeo, but it is the first one to make me wonder if the people making it ever play it.

i agree with all except the spawns at release , as due to too much crying on the forums the nerfs were too hard , now the game is left with little to no risk to anything that can be done in the game , 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Realist said:

Ah, something else I forgot but I believe is extremely important. Ced had also said one day that jeremy(now with grapeshot) didn’t  let the devs talk to each other. I told Ced that was messed up and that shouldn’t happen.

if the atlas devs aren’t able to talk to each other that would also make sense why there is mixed and sometimes conflicting information on different media platforms.

if you haven’t noticed ark is doing pretty well right now. Ced has also been a lot more free to speak to the public and the different teams seem to be working together now because a lot is getting fixed.

i am starting to put things together that maybe jeremy is running things the way he ran ark. This is still a theory but if I found this out to be true it would automatically make everything make perfect sense.

as well as help you understand why certain decisions get made that don’t make sense

A team of any sort (okay maybe except for spies or undercover) that is barred from talking to each other is just a bizarre notion to me. I find that much more disturbing than your mention of Ark devs playing other games. We all need downtime, and if you're working on a runaway hit like Ark, I see zero wrong with blowing off a little steam and playing something completely unrelated. In theory it could even be good research into pvp mechanics. Game developers should play a wide variety of games to keep abreast of their industry and see what ideas consumers are responding to. But on the other hand, if your game is flagging the way Atlas has, then the game you need to understand first and foremost is the one you're in the middle of working on.

Also I'm less concerned with whether the members of the team are playing than the decision makers at the top, because the problem with Atlas is not mostly that the art is crap because the crocodile looks like poo (it doesn't, it looks awesome), or that gear doesn't function the way it should and stat bonuses are wonky (they seem mostly fine relative to this point in the development cycle). Rather the problem is that core decision making of design choices that affect the overall structure and play feel of the game seem to be made from a place that lacks hands on play experience. These kinds of decisions come from the top, not the costume artist.

By the way, shout out to whoever did the wave and water animations. For all it's faults, when you go out onto the water in Atlas, it feels and looks as real as anything I've ever seen in a game. The ground level stuff tends to be where Atlas shines. It's not the grunts forbidden to speak to each other who seem like the problem, but the folks making bizarre decisions like, oh, I don't know...

Don't talk to the people you're working with on a massive collaborative project.

The word for how that strikes me is 

Dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, UDO said:

i agree with all except the spawns at release , as due to too much crying on the forums the nerfs were too hard , now the game is left with little to no risk to anything that can be done in the game , 

That's that overcorrecting I mentioned. At release, the spawns seem geared entirely towards swarms of players in mega companies being able to overcome them just by throwing tons of bodies at the problem, with everyone else SOL. I agree completely that the response to the justified outcry was overcorrection. I try not to take individual development teams to much to task for overcorrection primarily because it seems like something that happens in every game I've ever played. Even games with absolute top notch teams of great skill, nerfing seems more often than not to overcorrect. But I agree that the response was indeed an overcorrection. Perhaps it will be nudged upwards over time. 

The thing that I will admit is difficult for any development team is the balancing of challenge because too much challenge results in very obvious and noticeable outcry by your playerbase. Too little challenge tends more often to result mostly in boredom that leaves to people quietly quitting, often without realizing that the reason they are quitting is boredom due to removal of the challenge level they pitched a fit about. So this is an area where I try to cut developers a lot of slack, but Atlas's out of the gate spawn rates were pretty nuts even taking that into account. I remember not being able to find a place to gather effectively without constant interuption from attacking mobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, boomervoncannon said:

 

Also I'm less concerned with whether the members of the team are playing than the decision makers at the top.

I have a feeling that would be more of the meat and potatoes of your questions, that is why I felt the absolute need to bring up jeremy. 

I would also like to take you back to the release of EA of atlas.

i am pretty sure you are not on twitter but right when all the hype was pumped for atlas jeremy(who hadn’t spoken on twitter for months) was coming out with these long tweets every hour or so. Pretty unusual. I hadn’t followed the atlas twitter because I didn’t o ow it existed yet so I decided to follow it. 

I very quickly found out that he had an exact copy and paste of the atlas twitter but he always put his tweet a few minutes before the atlas Twitter. And I mean exact copy and paste.

everyone realized what he was doing(stealing the thunder of his own game) and immediately called him out on it(me included 😉) after that he stopped tweeting and we haven’t heard from him since.

so yes boomer, that is the top decision maker. He also made a decision that got his old company wildcard sued which obviously turn out to not be a good decision in hindsight.

i won’t bother going even earlier than wildcard with the claims of sexual harassment and sexism in the workplace at his first company he worked at

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Realist said:

I have a feeling that would be more of the meat and potatoes of your questions, that is why I felt the absolute need to bring up jeremy. 

I would also like to take you back to the release of EA of atlas.

i am pretty sure you are not on twitter but right when all the hype was pumped for atlas jeremy(who hadn’t spoken on twitter for months) was coming out with these long tweets every hour or so. Pretty unusual. I hadn’t followed the atlas twitter because I didn’t o ow it existed yet so I decided to follow it. 

I very quickly found out that he had an exact copy and paste of the atlas twitter but he always put his tweet a few minutes before the atlas Twitter. And I mean exact copy and paste.

everyone realized what he was doing(stealing the thunder of his own game) and immediately called him out on it(me included 😉) after that he stopped tweeting and we haven’t heard from him since.

so yes boomer, that is the top decision maker. He also made a decision that got his old company wildcard sued which obviously turn out to not be a good decision in hindsight.

i won’t bother going even earlier than wildcard with the claims of sexual harassment and sexism in the workplace at his first company he worked at

You are right, I'm not on twitter. Social media isn't my thing, actual human beings that you deal with in person is more my thing, being in sales. But thanks for the info, good background. I'm aware of the lawsuit issues that relate to how and why Ark became the first game ever to release a paid dlc while in Early Access. As far as anything about harrrassment etc. I'm going to leave that be as well for two reasons: A) it's not really germane to his business decisions or design decisions and B) it goes to someone's personal character, and having never met Jeremy personally I think it would be very unfair of me to comment on things of that nature.

I do think that Jeremy as a presumed top decision maker is no less than one of the people who is the crux of this issue. Having only a customers knowledge of GrapeCard's organizational structure, I don't know if or whom other individuals might be that also factor into that equation. So rather than lay it all at Jeremy's doorstep, I will say the powers that be and leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Gomez Addams said:

I will third this because I see a lot of  erosion of the player base on EU PVE. People that have played a lot are walking away from the game. I have played for the last 2 days at my normal time and been the only one in my grid at L9. Normally there would be about 7 or 8. What really made me scratch my head concerning management though is when Dollie said this in our “Don’t Raze Us” thread: 

Im a little confused on one specific aspect in relation to PvE brought up by a couple of posters though. I've seen examples of an island owner leaving or going awol and thus leaving settlers open to being wiped. Wouldn't those settlers just continue to pay the upkeep on the claim to keep it secure in that case? (aside from waiting to jump and claim it themselves of course). I'm not quite understanding how people can just "lose" a claim. 

With all due respect to those running the show, why do players need to explain this? Are there so many moving parts in a game like this that it is difficult to grasp them all or do they just need to play more as Boomer said? Usually the architect of a game understands the implications of rule changes or at least what game mechanics are working. Oh well, it is what it is. None of the answers really matter anyway because 1) early access and 2) I definitely got my monies worth out of Atlas. But I so hate lost potential of something that could be great.

 

Me to, all the companies I used to play with have left also and I was the last one standing. I've since left myself though, i've had enough of it and I usually just play single player with mods now. I certainly don't spend hours on it like I used to, i've found myself playing other games.

I still log in within the 10 days to keep timers active but that's about it, maybe I will come back to it after the next wipe when hopefully better things are included. The question is though how many times can they keep bringing players back after wipes? There will come a time where people just give up completely on it and leaving a few hardcore gamers who play it regardless of changes.

I had high hopes for Atlas at the beginning, hope they turn it around but I don't have any faith in them doing so, it will end up a game where only a few remain on each server and not the numbers anticipated, just my opinion though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, boomervoncannon said:

The powers that be at Atlas really should play the game more than whatever amount that they do.  The most active, loyal, and dedicated players so far in the 7 months since Atlas's launch have been repeatedly given the impression that those calling the shots do not play the game much if at all. I am not talking about design choices that split the community, those have their supporters and detractors. I am talking about design choices that leave any experienced player scratching their head wondering how anyone at Grapeshot ever thought *insert your favorite dumb idea here* was a good idea.

Examples include, but are not limited to:

-Insanely over the top rent prices for player shops that render them pointless.

-Initial spawn rates of sotd's and hostile creatures that made play for the average player insanely difficult.

-Storm frequency and damage out of all proportion to reality that made travel a perilous crapshoot which could cause players to lose tons of time and resources invested in ships and everything on them to be lost due to unavoidable storms which sprang up with little to no warning.

-Unnecessarily complicated land claim and retention mechanics which practically invite griefing of other players.

-Skill mechanics that require the ability to craft an item in order to be able to use it. In any game purporting to support ingame economy, this is unbelievably dumb.

Despite the fact some of these things have been corrected (others over corrected), these and other design choices have left the playerbase wondering if those calling the shots at GrapeCard ever actually log in and play the game they're creating. If they don't, they should. If they do, perhaps they need to do so more often, or interact with other players more when they do. If they are actually doing both these things, we might all be screwed. Because honestly, even though the game has it's moments and is fun enough to win my time, there are more than one or two calls here that are "should have died on the brainstorming table" bad. Yes, the players in an Early Access game are here to provide feedback and input, but the needed level of input and feedback should start somewhere above, not at "fire is hot."

I don't care who it is, but whoever is making the decisions that lead to these things really ought to spend more time in the game. Or at least stop making design choices so facepalm worthy as to give the impression they never do. This is not my first EA rodeo, but it is the first one to make me wonder if the people making it ever play it.

 

I agree. 

That being said, from day one playing Conan EA, the same question was asked many, many times.  The population also dropped to barely there.  Changes that made everyone scratch their head eventually started making sense, the further we went through the EA process.  Multiple, multiple wipes, cries of, the game is dead and other growing pains. 

Having stayed with the game through all that, things the devs did started making sense, clicking together until the official release.  The game at official release was 1000% better than 6 plus months before. 

I am only hoping that it will be the same with Atlas.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also agree with 8Ball,   The game is EA, its working progress, its going to turn into something amazing.   However I also agree with the OP.   The Devs really need to play the game like we do, to really understand its issues.  

You have to admit - Atlas is improving...   Who doesn't remember day 1 with all player corpses @ the freeport.   The struggle alone just to get off the island..   

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Dosgimp said:

I also agree with 8Ball,   The game is EA, its working progress, its going to turn into something amazing.   However I also agree with the OP.   The Devs really need to play the game like we do, to really understand its issues.  

You have to admit - Atlas is improving...   Who doesn't remember day 1 with all player corpses @ the freeport.   The struggle alone just to get off the island..   

*blinks*

Yeah no, not likely to forget that.

Boomer’s therapy paradox:  It is difficult to forget anything you are paying a therapist $150 per hour to cope with the flashbacks of, as the bill itself will tend to trigger more flashbacks.

Atlas launch week. Oh the horror.

*shudders*

Edited by boomervoncannon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, 8ball said:

 

I agree. 

That being said, from day one playing Conan EA, the same question was asked many, many times.  The population also dropped to barely there.  Changes that made everyone scratch their head eventually started making sense, the further we went through the EA process.  Multiple, multiple wipes, cries of, the game is dead and other growing pains. 

Having stayed with the game through all that, things the devs did started making sense, clicking together until the official release.  The game at official release was 1000% better than 6 plus months before. 

I am only hoping that it will be the same with Atlas.  

I was in Conan EA also and Conan did have its problems.  But Conan had a direction and a real roadmap for development and allot of the core design was good, it just needed some tweaks.

I don't think comparing the two games is fair to Atlas.  Atlas has huge problems and I really don't think the gaming community is going to forgive them.

This game reminds me more of Anthem and its botched development and deployment with broken core mechanics and just plain boredom.  But hey they both look good on the surface, too bad the water is only 1 inch deep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, boomervoncannon said:

*blinks*

Yeah no, not likely to forget that.

Boomer’s therapy paradox:  It is difficult to forget anything you are paying a therapist $150 per hour to cope with the flashbacks of, as the bill itself will tend to trigger more flashbacks.

Atlas launch week. Oh the horror.

*shudders*

It did nothing to help me overcome my anxiety and fear of sharks.  My older brothers took me to see Jaws in the 70's, scarred me for life. 🦈🦈🦈🦈

 

7 hours ago, sgzeroone said:

I was in Conan EA also and Conan did have its problems.  But Conan had a direction and a real roadmap for development and allot of the core design was good, it just needed some tweaks.

I don't think comparing the two games is fair to Atlas.  Atlas has huge problems and I really don't think the gaming community is going to forgive them.

This game reminds me more of Anthem and its botched development and deployment with broken core mechanics and just plain boredom.  But hey they both look good on the surface, too bad the water is only 1 inch deep.

I understand what you're saying but, I don't remember any Conan devs making their roadmap known. Not saying you're incorrect.  

I was comparing the playerbase responses and expressing my hopes that Atlas will end up similarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, 8ball said:

It did nothing to help me overcome my anxiety and fear of sharks.  My older brothers took me to see Jaws in the 70's, scarred me for life. 🦈🦈🦈🦈

Not to pick at that scar, but you know this scene is based on real events right?

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, boomervoncannon said:

Not to pick at that scar, but you know this scene is based on real events right?

 

You're a very cruel individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 8ball said:

You're a very cruel individual.

Sorry I can’t hear you over the screams of the puppies I’m kicking, what was that?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, boomervoncannon said:

Sorry I can’t hear you over the screams of the puppies I’m kicking, what was that?

Don’t you dare boomer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2019 at 5:41 PM, DannyUK said:

Me to, all the companies I used to play with have left also and I was the last one standing. I've since left myself though, i've had enough of it and I usually just play single player with mods now. I certainly don't spend hours on it like I used to, i've found myself playing other games.

I still log in within the 10 days to keep timers active but that's about it, maybe I will come back to it after the next wipe when hopefully better things are included. The question is though how many times can they keep bringing players back after wipes? There will come a time where people just give up completely on it and leaving a few hardcore gamers who play it regardless of changes.

I had high hopes for Atlas at the beginning, hope they turn it around but I don't have any faith in them doing so, it will end up a game where only a few remain on each server and not the numbers anticipated, just my opinion though.

Same here and i already said it in another thread -> Mega update will change nothing in the current state, but maybe they will do it like a wizard and they have a great special in their hat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×