Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Realist

Atlas and steam charts

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, user1 said:

If they can't be replaced by something non-taming-related, then yes.

Even just one would be too much.

At least now i know what to expect from the ark company.

Apparently, the key point in pirate life seems to be the baby cuddle intervals.

It is funny how this important part has been left out of almost every pirate related narrative ever.

I guess that was just bad storytelling. Or those just weren't fantasy pirates, only the regular, totally boring kind of pirates.

Now if you'd excuse me, i have to go collect some fucking berries so my bear won't starve.

I'm just kidding. I stopped playing this shit a week ago.

imo the pets on themselfs are not a bad addition, but the sailing and pirating has been left soooooo abandoned that is inevitable to compare and deem pets as unnecesary content, but content is not the main problem in the game, i think the problem is the lack of common sense, lack of good priorities critera and the most basic psychology principles not being even considered when implementing stuff, like:

-skill tree: good idea

-well impelented?: no

-blue prints: good idea

-well impelented?: no

-Progression: super good idea

-well impelented?: not even close

etc etc etc

we as humans cannot avoid looking at the neighboor's grass when its greener than ours (even i had one or 2 rants about pets being op and getting too much attention from the devs), but rather than wishing them bad we should focus asking a balanced investment of time in the different aspects of the game, yet again if the devs are too busy planning their xbox cashgrab and the new ark expansion well.... then the problem rather than pets is probably greed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, PeglegTheAngry said:

Dude... "stupendous"?  Are you kidding me? Dude... take that shit to the toilet where it belongs.

Taming is such a light focus of this game. It's a hell of a lot easier  than in Ark too.  A hell of a lot less time consuming. The taming in this game is a gimme; in most cases.

Also, taming was obviously in the game since the trailer.... you know, dude fighting hydra on bear, lady walking her snake.

You don't need a metric ass-load of tames.

What you need:

One bear, one giraffe, one elephant.

Three.

Three tames is too much?

Really?

i dont think the problem is them being hard to get or needing to many, but rather getting too much devs attenton when the rest of the game is literally boring as fuck

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The D Legacy said:

imo the pets on themselfs are not a bad addition, but the sailing and pirating has been left soooooo abandoned that is inevitable to compare and deem pets as unnecesary content, but content is not the main problem in the game, i think the problem is the lack of common sense, lack of good priorities critera and the most basic psychology principles not being even considered when implementing stuff, like:

-skill tree: good idea

-well impelented?: no

-blue prints: good idea

-well impelented?: no

-Progression: super good idea

-well impelented?: not even close

etc etc etc

we as humans cannot avoid looking at the neighboor's grass when its greener than ours (even i had one or 2 rants about pets being op and getting too much attention from the devs), but rather than wishing them bad we should focus asking a balanced investment of time in the different aspects of the game, yet again if the devs are too busy planning their xbox cashgrab and the new ark expansion well.... then the problem rather than pets is probably greed.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 7:20 AM, The D Legacy said:

1.- The game was sold as a game in early acces state not in alpha state...

On 8/13/2019 at 7:07 AM, Forb Hidden said:

I As long as the game is in the alpha phase, usually they just implying new stuff and content. 

On 8/13/2019 at 9:23 AM, boomervoncannon said:

The game was sold as early access but not alpha state...

On 8/13/2019 at 9:03 AM, The D Legacy said:

1.- It was never stated that the game was in alpha state (prove me wrong)

 

Forb Hidden has the right of it on this. I looked this up several months back, but no worries, I was also incorrect when I first looked it up.

 

Early access

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the video game industry term. For the clinical drug testing term, see expanded access.

Early access, also known as early funding, alpha-access, alpha founding, or paid-alpha, is a funding model in the video game industry by which consumers can purchase and play a game in the various pre-release development cycles, such as pre-alpha, alpha, and/or beta, while the developer is able to use those funds to continue further development on the game. Those that pay to participate typically help to debug the game, provide feedback and suggestions, and may have access to special materials in the game. The early-access approach is a common way to obtain funding for indie games, and may also be used along with other funding mechanisms, including crowdfunding. Many crowdfunding projects promise to offer access to alpha and/or beta versions of the game as development progresses; however, unlike some of these projects which solicit funds but do not yet have a playable game, all early access games offer an immediately playable version of the unfinished game to players.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Chucksteak said:

 

Forb Hidden has the right of it on this. I looked this up several months back, but no worries, I was also incorrect when I first looked it up.

 

Early access

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the video game industry term. For the clinical drug testing term, see expanded access.

Early access, also known as early funding, alpha-access, alpha founding, or paid-alpha, is a funding model in the video game industry by which consumers can purchase and play a game in the various pre-release development cycles, such as pre-alpha, alpha, and/or beta, while the developer is able to use those funds to continue further development on the game. Those that pay to participate typically help to debug the game, provide feedback and suggestions, and may have access to special materials in the game. The early-access approach is a common way to obtain funding for indie games, and may also be used along with other funding mechanisms, including crowdfunding. Many crowdfunding projects promise to offer access to alpha and/or beta versions of the game as development progresses; however, unlike some of these projects which solicit funds but do not yet have a playable game, all early access games offer an immediately playable version of the unfinished game to players.

That’s the Wikipedia entry, which means 2 things:

1. Any wiki is editable and while Wikipedia generally corrects anything verifiably wrong, this statement of what access is falls into enough of a grey area that I don’t think they’d change it. 

2. More importantly, it is not anything GrapeCard has put forward, which is what I was asserting. As prior debate over the past 8 months on these very forums have demonstrated, there is not consensus within the gaming community that EA and alpha are or mean the same thing. Some consider that to be the case, others do not. I am in the do not camp for 2 reasons: players did not pay for access to alpha testing and would have looked at you sideways had you suggested it. Also EA is too broad, alpha meant a fairly specific generally understood thing. What you get in an Early Access game is a crapshoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways it doesn't matter how you tell it. At least it's still the same unfinished game in his state. In our language we get several words for a slice of bread. At least it's a slice of bread^^

Share this post


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

That’s the Wikipedia entry, which means 2 things:

1. Any wiki is editable and while Wikipedia generally corrects anything verifiably wrong, this statement of what access is falls into enough of a grey area that I don’t think they’d change it. 

2. More importantly, it is not anything GrapeCard has put forward, which is what I was asserting. As prior debate over the past 8 months on these very forums have demonstrated, there is not consensus within the gaming community that EA and alpha are or mean the same thing. Some consider that to be the case, others do not. I am in the do not camp for 2 reasons: players did not pay for access to alpha testing and would have looked at you sideways had you suggested it. Also EA is too broad, alpha meant a fairly specific generally understood thing. What you get in an Early Access game is a crapshoot.

To be sure, I personally don't care enough to have a horse for or against the definition on "Early Access". I do try to understand the words and terms I use and help others when I see it. 

1. I usually default to "wikipedia" as they pop up first and are generally socially accepted as being at the least, mostly correct.

2. The only thing I have to say is that this is possibly one of the lowest pop forums I've posted on. I wouldn't use these as a sample size for the gaming community simply due to the lack people.

All the same I looked around some more. I found steams position and the urban dictionary's definition. I must respectfully conclude that an EA is a playable Alpha or at best a Beta version of that game.

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess

What is Early Access?

Steam Early Access enables you to sell your game on Steam while it is still being developed, and provide context to customers that a product should be considered "unfinished." Early Access is a place for games that are in a playable alpha or beta state, are worth the current value of the playable build, and that you plan to continue to develop for release.

 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=early access

When video game developers sell a game before it is done to milk more money out of their customers. It's usually broken and in the alpha or beta stages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Chucksteak said:

To be sure, I personally don't care enough to have a horse for or against the definition on "Early Access". I do try to understand the words and terms I use and help others when I see it. 

1. I usually default to "wikipedia" as they pop up first and are generally socially accepted as being at the least, mostly correct.

2. The only thing I have to say is that this is possibly one of the lowest pop forums I've posted on. I wouldn't use these as a sample size for the gaming community simply due to the lack people.

All the same I looked around some more. I found steams position and the urban dictionary's definition. I must respectfully conclude that an EA is a playable Alpha or at best a Beta version of that game.

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess

What is Early Access?

Steam Early Access enables you to sell your game on Steam while it is still being developed, and provide context to customers that a product should be considered "unfinished." Early Access is a place for games that are in a playable alpha or beta state, are worth the current value of the playable build, and that you plan to continue to develop for release.

 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=early access

When video game developers sell a game before it is done to milk more money out of their customers. It's usually broken and in the alpha or beta stages.

Regardless of the sample size, the point is that some feel that Early Access and alpha are interchangeable, others do not, hence there is not a consensus that they mean the same thing. If there is no consensus and Grapecard did not use the term alpha in marketing the game, then the point that Forb asserted it was sold as alpha when it was not stands. Since Grapecard did not use the term themselves, his assertion could only be valid if there is a generally agreed consensus the two are interchangeable, which there is not.

Just like Forb, you are free to conclude that Alpha and EA are the same, but the underlying point is not what you, I, Forb or anyone thinks about this, but whether GrapeCard sold it using this specific term. They did not and have not, therefore Forb’s assertion is off base.

Additionally, i’ve given you two reasons why I consider Early Access and Alpha to mean different things. Both of these reasons point to qualitative differences between the terms. Can you tell me any   reason these aren’t valid or meaningful distinctions?

Edited by boomervoncannon

Share this post


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

 

Forb Hidden has the right of it on this. I looked this up several months back, but no worries, I was also incorrect when I first looked it up.

 

Early access

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the video game industry term. For the clinical drug testing term, see expanded access.

Early access, also known as early funding, alpha-access, alpha founding, or paid-alpha, is a funding model in the video game industry by which consumers can purchase and play a game in the various pre-release development cycles, such as pre-alpha, alpha, and/or beta, while the developer is able to use those funds to continue further development on the game. Those that pay to participate typically help to debug the game, provide feedback and suggestions, and may have access to special materials in the game. The early-access approach is a common way to obtain funding for indie games, and may also be used along with other funding mechanisms, including crowdfunding. Many crowdfunding projects promise to offer access to alpha and/or beta versions of the game as development progresses; however, unlike some of these projects which solicit funds but do not yet have a playable game, all early access games offer an immediately playable version of the unfinished game to players.

 

 
"is a funding model in the video game industry by which consumers can purchase and play a game in the various pre-release development cycles, such as pre-alpha, alpha, and/or beta"
 
now that it has been proved that you have coprehension issues of even the stuff you yourself hold as an argument, do we even need to continue?
 
Edited by The D Legacy

Share this post


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

Anyways it doesn't matter how you tell it. At least it's still the same unfinished game in his state. In our language we get several words for a slice of bread. At least it's a slice of bread^^

Sure they are all slices of bread, but if a bakery puts up a sign offering wheat and sourdough bread, what you can’t do is claim they said they were sellling rye bread just because you and others think rye tastes more or less the same as wheat. They didn’t use the word rye on the sign, and there are meaningful differences between rye and wheat. Waving your hand after the fact and saying “It doesn’t matter because it’s all bread” misses the point.

Words matter.

Edited by boomervoncannon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

EA and the stage of development for the game are two different things.  I knew this was an alpha going in by reading some comments on it and still jumped in because it sounded like a fun game to test and help shape. 

Edited by DocHolliday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DocHolliday said:

EA and the stage of development for the game are two different things.  I knew this was an alpha going in by reading some comments on it and still jumped in because it sounded like a fun game to test and help shape.  

pre-alpha, alpha, beta, etc are to early acces the same as apple, banana, pear, etc are to fruits, they are not the same thing because one is contained within the other, and as far as i know there was no official statement clarifying the stage of development for the game was alpha, please show me the source if i am wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG

Chuck Steak - Wikipedia is not an academic source for anything!!!

EA is a Game in DEVELOPMENT (ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT)

EA does NOT mean alpha!!!  It means the game is under development...

And lastly the Atlas Dev's haven't given any information regarding what stage we are on,  this means officially nobody knows what stage this is!

Unofficially- When Atlas released I can guarantee we were at the Alpha stage the game was a train wreck and that's being nice to train wrecks!!!

However Atlas was supposed to have a 2 year development cycle which means we could easily be in beta at this point.

 

Now what was this post about again???  Oh right the low steam numbers showing a declining population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, The D Legacy said:

"is a funding model in the video game industry by which consumers can purchase and play a game in the various pre-release development cycles, such as pre-alpha, alpha, and/or beta"

 
now that it has been proved that you have coprehension issues of even the stuff you yourself hold as an argument, do we even need to continue?
 

Umm what lol?

Lets set aside the lack of effort you put into making that a real sentence with the correct words.

I am not sure you are following along. I was saying that EA games are generally games that are in one of those states that you highlighted above. Actually, I was not saying it, the internet was. Or to be more specific, Valve corp, Wikipedia, and Urban dictionary were saying that.

I did not coin the term Early Access, therefore I will not assume it to mean something it doesn't, or redefine it to fit what I think it should be. 

 

13 hours ago, The D Legacy said:

pre-alpha, alpha, beta, etc are to early acces the same as apple, banana, pear, etc are to fruits, they are not the same thing because one is contained within the other, and as far as i know there was no official statement clarifying the stage of development for the game was alpha, please show me the source if i am wrong.

 

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess

This link that I used in my post above is directly from the steam page that explains to developers what EA is. They specifically state that an EA game is a playable game in Alpha or Beta that is both worth the value charged and with intention to be finished. You seem to be upset that Grapeshot did not tell you if the game was in Alpha or Beta. It seems semantic to be upset with that specific lack of clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Chucksteak said:

I am not sure you are following along. I was saying that EA games are generally games that are in one of those states that you highlighted above. Actually, I was not saying it, the internet was. Or to be more specific, Valve corp, Wikipedia, and Urban dictionary were saying that.

I did not coin the term Early Access, therefore I will not assume it to mean something it doesn't, or redefine it to fit what I think it should be. 

I think he means that an early access game is early access as soon as it comes out and it is also early access the day before it gets released.

So trying to asign a label like alpha / beta is meaningless as it can be any of those at some stage.

However it is perfectly reasonable to set aside the 'early access' label and describe it as alpha / beta at various stages of a games progress.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Regardless of the sample size, the point is that some feel that Early Access and alpha are interchangeable, others do not, hence there is not a consensus that they mean the same thing. If there is no consensus and Grapecard did not use the term alpha in marketing the game, then the point that Forb asserted it was sold as alpha when it was not stands. Since Grapecard did not use the term themselves, his assertion could only be valid if there is a generally agreed consensus the two are interchangeable, which there is not.

Just like Forb, you are free to conclude that Alpha and EA are the same, but the underlying point is not what you, I, Forb or anyone thinks about this, but whether GrapeCard sold it using this specific term. They did not and have not, therefore Forb’s assertion is off base.

Additionally, i’ve given you two reasons why I consider Early Access and Alpha to mean different things. Both of these reasons point to qualitative differences between the terms. Can you tell me any   reason these aren’t valid or meaningful distinctions?

My apologies, I think we misunderstood each other. 

I do not assert that EA and Alpha mean the same thing. Only that a game in EA is in Alpha stage, or possibly in Beta. I don't frown upon Grapeshot for not clearly stating if Atlas was in Alpha or Beta as I don't think Steam requires you to make this distinction when you put a game out in EA.

My point is that being in EA it is assumed by steam, and therefore the players, that the game is in Alpha or Beta at best. 

-CS

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it really matter if we call it EA, alpha or beta? Does it changes anything to the game right now or is it just up to you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think the problem with Atlas when it comes to deciding if its alpha or beta is because it keeps shifting between each the two.  Personally, after the original release failed they should have just went back to pre-alpha stage because most of the features on the game were broken and just terrible at launch.  The band-aid fixes they have been doing since launch are pretty much terrible. 

I personally think that no game should go on Steam EA without being at least a beta state.   Unless your goal is to get terrible reviews on steam...

Atlas is still in a early alpha state at best, they don't have all the features of the game completed from what I can tell.  And if all the main features of the game are implemented then I understand why it's failing.  It's just not good....

Edited by sgzeroone

Share this post


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

Umm what lol?

Lets set aside the lack of effort you put into making that a real sentence with the correct words.

I am not sure you are following along. I was saying that EA games are generally games that are in one of those states that you highlighted above. Actually, I was not saying it, the internet was. Or to be more specific, Valve corp, Wikipedia, and Urban dictionary were saying that.

I did not coin the term Early Access, therefore I will not assume it to mean something it doesn't, or redefine it to fit what I think it should be.

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess

This link that I used in my post above is directly from the steam page that explains to developers what EA is. They specifically state that an EA game is a playable game in Alpha or Beta that is both worth the value charged and with intention to be finished. You seem to be upset that Grapeshot did not tell you if the game was in Alpha or Beta. It seems semantic to be upset with that specific lack of clarification.

i find it to be a very important clarification, as it greatly impacts not only the gameplay experience and user expectations of the product but also it sets precedent in the gaming industry as to how shady a company can be to sell a product and get away with it with barely no repercution, since as we all know laying is not only the action of telling a lie if also the omission of the truth (in this case the detailed info about the product they sell). it might not be important for you in particular, but that doesnt make it right.

Edited by The D Legacy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Forb Hidden said:

Does it really matter if we call it EA, alpha or beta? Does it changes anything to the game right now or is it just up to you? 

Personally I think it matters a great deal because prior teminology alpha and beta, were more precise and gave players a more accurate idea of whether the game was very early in it's development cycle, or further along. I dislike the one size fits all term Early Access in part because it has been applied to games of wildly varying levels of completeness when first offered to players. This is important because unlike old style game testing Early Access games ask players to pay for the privilege, so at the same time that knowing how far along development a game is in order to determine if it suits your personal tolerance for an unfinished state becomes more important because you're being asked to pay, a single broad losely defined new term has been substituted for two older more established, generally understood terms.

tl:dr version: At the same time the industry starts asking you to pay for something that used to be free, they are calling it something new, which is harder to define, and therefore gives them more wiggle room for it to be crap.

Edited by boomervoncannon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

🌨️   ☃️ You all need to chill the hell out ☃️   🌨️

 🍍🔥👈🌬️   🍺👉👄   🍬☝️👃    💊👉🍑


I think my theory about why this game is dead is because of the playerbase is 100%  right. Look at how you guys fighting over this shit and most of you don't know what you are talking about. Every argument I have heard about this game ranges from ageism, ignorant, to hyperbolic. Grrr...

 

Look, I know you guys are frustrated, I am too. But, this is the nature of early access;  and a lot of you aren't taking EA into account for... a lot of this. Releasing to console, getting ready for console, all of  that is part of EA especially with WildCard. Another thing you guys have to keep in mind this that this team is working on multiple projects. The team is small, mostly made up of people who were modders, or not formally trained.

Nothing like Atlas has ever been attempted before. You all really need to cut the devs, and yourselves some fucking slack. Like for example.

Do you really think that the skins are forever going to be purchasable at the Freeport?

Or do you think, eventually they will be gated.... and like Tek are actually upgrades?

A lot of things in this game are temporary.


I don't understand half of your complaints, or why they even would be complaints to begin with. Like the shit about "feudal lords" and other nonsense. I mean, I really don't see why paying a "tax" that you don't really pay  (it just gets added to what you farm) to live on the island they have to farm gold to maintain. Really? What affect does this have on you or your game? Why is it a problem?




Why are tames a problem? They were advertised with the game. Fuck THEY WERE ADVERTISED WITH WoW (oh... and its a BEAR). They are part of the MMO genre. Get over your grievances. Also what the hell do you think pirates did on their own property when not at sea? They farmed. They maintained their ship.



God. Dammit. Ya'll.

Just show some love for the game and your fellow players. Look at the passion Rust players have, even when the game was at its worst... there was an out-pour of LOVE for the game to get it to improve. Seriously, didn't Mr. Rogers teach you assholes anything?

Edited by PeglegTheAngry
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

 

Look, I know you guys are frustrated, I am too. But, this is the nature of early access;  and a lot of you aren't taking EA into account for... a lot of this. Releasing to console, getting ready for console, all of  that is part of EA especially with WildCard. Another thing you guys have to keep in mind this that this team is working on multiple projects. The team is small, mostly made up of people who were modders, or not formally trained.

That exactly the problem, a small team should focus on 1 game/platform and finish their job before trying to cover more platforms out of pure greed, the nature of early acces is to found projects so the can come to be, not found them so they get halted in their incomplete state so the team can focus on some other projects for a quick cashgrab while the players who trusted them are left hanging

 

2 hours ago, PeglegTheAngry said:

Nothing like Atlas has ever been attempted before. You all really need to cut the devs, and yourselves some fucking slack. Like for example.

Do you really think that the skins are forever going to be purchasable at the Freeport?

Or do you think, eventually they will be gated.... and like Tek are actually upgrades?

A lot of things in this game are temporary.

whats your point? what do the costumes have to do with anything? what is it that has never been attempted before?? costumes? temporary stuff?? the hell are you talking about!!!???

 

2 hours ago, PeglegTheAngry said:

I don't understand half of your complaints, or why they even would be complaints to begin with. Like the shit about "feudal lords" and other nonsense. I mean, I really don't see why paying a "tax" that you don't really pay  (it just gets added to what you farm) to live on the island they have to farm gold to maintain. Really? What affect does this have on you or your game? Why is it a problem?

Why are tames a problem? They were advertised with the game. Fuck THEY WERE ADVERTISED WITH WoW (oh... and its a BEAR). They are part of the MMO genre. Get over your grievances. Also what the hell do you think pirates did on their own property when not at sea? They farmed. They maintained their ship.


God. Dammit. Ya'll.

Just show some love for the game and your fellow players. Look at the passion Rust players have, even when the game was at its worst... there was an out-pour of LOVE for the game to get it to improve. Seriously, didn't Mr. Rogers teach you assholes anything?

they are complaints because....well because you decided they are complains....

the feudal lord system has been discussed about before, and it has been explained why it doesnt fit the thematic of the game so i will resume it to you:

the standar/romantic definition people have about a Pirate: person that likes freedom to the point they became outlaws to break with the shackles of society standars/rules

the standar/romantic definition people have about a Feudal lord: person to whom you give part of your work/effort in the shape of currency to borrow his land (can kick you out of his land any time he wants, for any reason he wants and inspires a sense of slavery/injustice/being forced to..)

your definition of the above might be different but the point is:

why the hell would and entity such as pirates wich biggest trait is love/need/obsession with freedom want to ever live under a feudal lord wich represent exactly the opposite ideals, they are by definition conceptual antagonists!!! i bought a pirate game because i wanted a game that would offer me the life of a pirate, the life of freedom, the life of i can do the fuck i want without depending on others, without having to deal with others bullshit or social/political correctness, thats what atlas advertised, and thats exactly what the game is not delivering.

Tames are not a problem for me tho... except when a fucking vulture kills my 99% tamed olfend because they aggro low hp entities regardles of context....or when a lion rains from the fucking sky (because physics!!!!!) in the middle of my taming and kills me, the animal i had 50% tamed and then my bear (this i could tolerate because of the game is on EA)

who the fuck is Mr. Rogers?? is he gonna fix this shit?

Edited by The D Legacy
  • Like 1

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  

×