Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Sneakydude

Could all this have been avoided?

Recommended Posts

If the devs just re balanced the current system? and fixed the flag system. Putting some hardcore caps on alliances being greater then 5-10. Restricting player join bases of 1000 to maybe 250 cap size? Finding a way to handle fast spawning in on ships to over balance the servers. Meaning you can only have 50 raiding people in one zone at a time. (nothing saying you cant just raid multi zones at the same time) Servers go red and lock out others.

Fixing the exploits first, and the massive bugs and cheats in the game and most of all adding proper ddos protections instead of spending 1000 hrs coding a new system to split the current player base into 4 now...

1 unofficial, the rest 3 different modes of game play.

It will take the loads off of 50 man and under sizes but it will never fix the mega tribes of 1000 players all fighting it out on hardcore mode. The worst problem is you have allowed NA combined with EU and Asia, what more can you ask for problems? "Sheeps will follow its master when it comes to the term Mega Tribe"

Otherwise this is un necessary delays.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then again you should also maybe change it into 2 or more factions Pirates being the most aggressive ones on the map, then the rest can split into other factions capping the limits on how many can balance out. PVP might be more interesting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you decided to go on a raid and raid an island join a raiding group system instead of player by player fast spawning into a zone. Would make it easy to keep a ruleset being locked into a raiding window. you still can place war on an island instead of just mass exploiting servers. Since this is suppose to be an MMO why not make it like a standard MMO group system window.

I get it, your not into designing MMos but maybe now is the time to learn from other companies that design MMos.

Share this post


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

I get it, your not into designing MMos but maybe now is the time to learn from other companies that design MMos.

That’s just crazy talk.

Share this post


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

Or just the truth?

*shrugs*

You say potato, I say motor torpedo boat. Who’s to say who’s right?

But for the record I was being tongue in cheek. I agree that there is little to suggest they studied MMO design elements very closely before embarking on Atlas, and much to suggest they should have.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

If the devs just re balanced the current system? and fixed the flag system. Putting some hardcore caps on alliances being greater then 5-10. Restricting player join bases of 1000 to maybe 250 cap size? Finding a way to handle fast spawning in on ships to over balance the servers. Meaning you can only have 50 raiding people in one zone at a time. (nothing saying you cant just raid multi zones at the same time) Servers go red and lock out others.

Fixing the exploits first, and the massive bugs and cheats in the game and most of all adding proper ddos protections instead of spending 1000 hrs coding a new system to split the current player base into 4 now...

1 unofficial, the rest 3 different modes of game play.

It will take the loads off of 50 man and under sizes but it will never fix the mega tribes of 1000 players all fighting it out on hardcore mode. The worst problem is you have allowed NA combined with EU and Asia, what more can you ask for problems? "Sheeps will follow its master when it comes to the term Mega Tribe"

Otherwise this is un necessary delays.

The mega tribes would just split up and whitelist each other when they roll together to zerg fools... caping would be a hard issues... would need to disable names in combat or all together on ships. Maybe a permanent autofire feature for cannons that fire on any ship that passes close enough that isn't alliance... but that would take away from a lot of good rp scenarios. 

On the flip side, i don't think many people join mega tribes because they even want to, i think it's a survival thing. They don't want to get stomped out so they merge.. i think the colony version of pvp will open up for the mega's to split up and move away from working with each other... thus improving game play... because let's be real, the servers can't even handle large zergs without lagging the fuck out. No one likes that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

*shrugs*

You say potato, I say motor torpedo boat. Who’s to say who’s right?

But for the record I was being tongue in cheek. I agree that there is little to suggest they studied MMO design elements very closely before embarking on Atlas, and much to suggest they should have.

This leads to my other point direction and management team. Lots on paper, and lots of point form notes no concrete direction. But yes i hope it changes, I didnt buy this game to play ark, i already have it. Ark is a small game, atlas is turning into the same direction from what i see.

Share this post


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

If the devs just re balanced the current system? and fixed the flag system. Putting some hardcore caps on alliances being greater then 5-10. Restricting player join bases of 1000 to maybe 250 cap size? Finding a way to handle fast spawning in on ships to over balance the servers. Meaning you can only have 50 raiding people in one zone at a time. (nothing saying you cant just raid multi zones at the same time) Servers go red and lock out others.

Fixing the exploits first, and the massive bugs and cheats in the game and most of all adding proper ddos protections instead of spending 1000 hrs coding a new system to split the current player base into 4 now...

1 unofficial, the rest 3 different modes of game play.

It will take the loads off of 50 man and under sizes but it will never fix the mega tribes of 1000 players all fighting it out on hardcore mode. The worst problem is you have allowed NA combined with EU and Asia, what more can you ask for problems? "Sheeps will follow its master when it comes to the term Mega Tribe"

Otherwise this is un necessary delays.

I don’t believe there should be any alliances at all. It is pvp after all. 

Well if you split the 24 hour peak into 4(2800) at least there would be 700 people on each cluster.

with 225 servers per cluster that is still 3.1 people on every server. That isn’t too bad.

nah, but really it is time to make the maps a lot smaller. I get they wanted the hype of 40k on a cluster but that just won’t happen. Time to save some money and lessen the empty space.

i mean we all know ark was a lot more successful and they sold over 12 million copies. The thing is even ark didn’t go over 106,000.

between the 4, wait... now 5 to 6 clusters. No let’s stick with 4 for this. Between the 4 clusters there was a possibility for 135,000 people. If ark didn’t reach that atlas sure never will. Time to make the map smaller. No need to travel for hours just to see someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sneakydude said:

Then again you should also maybe change it into 2 or more factions Pirates being the most aggressive ones on the map, then the rest can split into other factions capping the limits on how many can balance out. PVP might be more interesting.

Hmm, that's actually an interesting idea. A faction-based gameplay option (rather than the doomed empire server) could be workable. At creation, each company must align with one of several regional factions. E.g., Brethren, Corsairs, Privateers, etc.. And each faction would  more or less function as a pre-made alliance, potentially helping to offset the player-created mega alliances.

Or not - don't want the update pushed back to July...

Edited by Kast
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Hmm, that's actually an interesting idea. A faction-based gameplay option (rather than the doomed empire server) could be interesting. At creation, each company must align with one of several regional factions. E.g., Brethren, Corsairs, Privateers, etc.. And each faction would  more or less function as a pre-made alliance, potentially helping to offset the player-created mega alliances.

Or not - don't want the update pushed back to July...

Nah. Horde or alliance. Two factions and no companies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Realist said:

Nah. Horde or alliance. Two factions and no companies.

That works too. Many options then making it split all over.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sneakydude said:

That works too. Many options then making it split all over.

Yeah, unfortunately they have to do something about those worthless Megas though. 

It is a real shame how the weak can Actually ruin a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they had rid of companies and alliances and went with maybe a faction group then there would be no need for groups of 1000+ to be together. It would have been much easier to put up Pirates vrs countries. They could have also capped limits of 50 players per group, of friends but only be able to faction. It would be a back and forth war between either 2 sides or more depending.

Squad is a good example, and so is blackwake.. tickets.. however flags, war system remove the tickets system from those other games. It basically boils down to Orginal WOW horde vrs Alliance. Or you could look at games like Dark Age of Camelot original system.

It might have a better appeal to the server then splitting up the whole system.

Clearly a creative director would have looked at this very closely. I am stating all of this as years of playing games such as Real MMOs and we really havent had a real mmo since Everquest. Which btw had more viewers then Atlas today. Which is very sad as eq is 20 yrs + old but it still is a fun game.

You still can have companies in a faction type system just cap the shit out of it, and alliances are for those in the factions only. Go to war, take over land and help defend attacks with other faction members. Leader boards would be more like WW2 games taking territory's.

Its not a new concept but it works... we know, when we played games like World War Online 2...

Yes i am old... turning 50 in a couple of years and yes i am cranky as hell over this whole development project. Its hurting un official too, and maybe more so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You open up group windows, invite players from your 50 player company and go to war. Either helping 2 areas or going to a massive fight. You could also set it to faction generals, or company generals where we all fight in sync to that territory. Still we know the limits of 150 players per server. Yet once it is full it still can equal 100 pirates vrs 50 others. Once a war is established by the General of said faction, you reserve the 50 man slots vrs 100 pirates. It can be that simple.

Its no where full proof at all, but it is a much easier system then trying to split everything up into small segments, like is happening now. We are splitting the player base into many different systems. That is not called for unless those mega clans wish for a separate rule set server like Hardcore, then make the others more geared to a faction type war system.

Could it work on un official? yes it can.

Edited by Sneakydude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah so you want the premade factions, like New Providence vs Great Britain vs Spain. Ha! Interesting, but IMO would take away the sandboxy feeling.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gnihar said:

Ah so you want the premade factions, like New Providence vs Great Britain vs Spain. Ha! Interesting, but IMO would take away the sandboxy feeling.

It would add more to war pvp feel, but still we can do sandbox per company islands. If raided we can go into a control Freeport that is not raidable or something. So many different things you guys can come up with. But this is only 1 idea done in like 5 minutes of thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don’t think their thoughts were in that way at all. For one, we don’t even have clear lore on existing Atlas, we only know it is not Earth, and some advanced atlantean-like civilization existed prior to human one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, gnihar said:

Honestly, I don’t think their thoughts were in that way at all. For one, we don’t even have clear lore on existing Atlas, we only know it is not Earth, and some advanced atlantean-like civilization existed prior to human one.

Uh oh, tek tier is coming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gnihar said:

Honestly, I don’t think their thoughts were in that way at all. For one, we don’t even have clear lore on existing Atlas, we only know it is not Earth, and some advanced atlantean-like civilization existed prior to human one.

This is why a creative direction needs to be applied. Either in the future or something. We know of other games that have been working on a faction system for years. IF only someone would hash it out prior none of this would have happened. We need clear answers. You still can help other companies in your faction go onto the island and use your own supplies and ships but never another companies supplies. Its locked out/can not damage. Just some ideas other then splitting the servers up.

Just now, Realist said:

Uh oh, tek tier is coming

Actually that scares me a lot. I do not want P90 weapons running around the islands and giant tanks running through the oceans... They will be down to what 10 people online after that? i think people clearly want an original pirate game not this...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That works too. Many options then making it split all over.

Two factions doesn't really seem like enough for me, I would be looking at something like 10 factions with designated land areas that shift as people conquer different areas. Two factions leads to such narrow conflict options like Horde vs Alliance, it was too black and white. With 10 factions then some can be openly hostile, some allied and some neutral depending on things like how much trade was done between each group or how much combat each week.

Have some reason to trade at least, make it that some of each type of resource is set in the designated areas, if company "A" wants softwood you have to either trade with faction "B" or sneak into their territory and harvest it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if they would have released it as ARK DLC, like it was supposed to be, instead of trying to make it into something it was never intended to be. Having a Pirate on the game cover doesnt make it a Pirate game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Grongash said:

Yes, if they would have released it as ARK DLC, like it was supposed to be, instead of trying to make it into something it was never intended to be. Having a Pirate on the game cover doesnt make it a Pirate game.

This is false information. This game was never intended as a ‘ARK DLC’ because that would’ve been impossible to make because of the dino’s overload. You can’t have massive bases full with kibble farms and dino’s, and have the greatness of ATLAS’ map. That’s what the statement was by Wildcard I’m just repeating it. But let’s get the whole ‘ARK DLC’ out of the way. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

This is false information. This game was never intended as a ‘ARK DLC’ because that would’ve been impossible to make because of the dino’s overload. You can’t have massive bases full with kibble farms and dino’s, and have the greatness of ATLAS’ map. That’s what the statement was by Wildcard I’m just repeating it. But let’s get the whole ‘ARK DLC’ out of the way. 

That makes the big emphasis on tames even harder to understand. But hey, thanks for clearing that up.r

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Percieval said:

This is false information. This game was never intended as a ‘ARK DLC’ because that would’ve been impossible to make because of the dino’s overload. You can’t have massive bases full with kibble farms and dino’s, and have the greatness of ATLAS’ map. That’s what the statement was by Wildcard I’m just repeating it. But let’s get the whole ‘ARK DLC’ out of the way. 

You'd have to be pretty gullible to believe that statement from Wildcard, there was plenty  of evidence to show that Atlas was more than likely a planned DLC for Ark. But being a relatively shrewd company, they made the right decision in making it a standalone game instead.

 

How they managed to screw up so much after that is a mystery to everyone, its Ark Beta all over again. And make no mistake it will always be content > bug fixes.

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  

×
×
  • Create New...