boomervoncannon

Nothing about your post even hinted at exaggeration and if you don’t think people don’t pull this kind of crap being serious all the time you’re not really paying attention. This is what emojis and other context tools are for. Don’t hold me responsible for a tone or implication you fail to convey. Of course your response could also just be a cheap CYA out.

Given that Ark went into EA in 2015, and it's currently the end of 2018, you WEREN'T playing Ark six years ago. People are still hiding under the mesh, but you tend to destroy your own credibility when you make obviously untrue statements that anyone can easily fact check.

The green of the text Can Be Crafted At: Smithy would seem to indicate it is. This text should be red if the screenie were taken when it was not.

I’m aware of the mini game, but if it is possible to fill skins from the water spout it generates, please tell me how, as I’ve been unable to figure out a way to do so. This means refilling the water barrel on my raft is problematic.

So I admit I haven’t done a ton of exploring yet (stupid rl, why does the gf and family ALWAYS have to get together for Christmas? We just did it last year! Can’t we skip a year?) but I’m not seeing much in the way of water sources at all. The overspawning of predators makes me hesitate to venture too far inland solo at lowish levels, but I’m not seeing hardly any streams or rivers empty out into the ocean. Is it just the randomness of my limited sample size or is this indicative of the game world? Because creature spawns and ghost ships and skill systems are all a lot more tweakable than “oh, we forgot to put more than 30 water sources in 700 islands. Our bad.”

If you find a freshwater source nearby, you can fill the barrels by filling waterskins, then placing them in the barrels inventory. Once you do so, right click on the skin and select the option to fill barrel, then remove the skin. A barrel will hold about 5 skins worth iirc.

Metal Famine sounds like a garage band from Long Island. Just sayin.

I played a little Burning Seas back in the day. Seemed like it had some good ideas but not enough content.

Guys you’re soooo missing the point. Toxic behavior on official servers *is* the rp. When that midget screams at you to “EAT MY WAKE NOOB!!! LULZ” he’s not exhibiting mindlessly immature behavior that makes you question his upbringing or obvious lack of any social grace. No, he’s actually making a subtle commentary on the distopian nature of the online worlds we’ve created for ourselves. When he ganks you and steals all your stuff moments after you’ve put down an alpha, he’s really providing a subtle illustration on how online games have rendered social norms all but meaningless, creating a void where the only norm that matters is the dictum to do unto others before they do unto you. This is rp on a whole different level. You might even say it’s an art form, because it’s practitioners are so good at it, so immersed in their role and message that it’s reached the point I can’t tell the difference between them and an actual kid just being a dick because mommy doesn’t love him enough and that is somehow the internet’s fault.

Me either. Never heard of any. Guessing they aren’t a thing atm.

Wherever the emerald refuge is, don’t recall grid exactly.

#Linda4ever you should always name your flagship Linda.

Okay. I nominate you. Go make a better game. It’s easy right? PS. What’s a scrum master? Is this the guy in charge of regulating the scrum in rugby?

Survival and the word fair. Two things that do not belong together.

*has disturbing visions of Flo and the geico Gecko in pirate outfits.*

If that’s all that happens, I’m perfectly fine with it. All I’m saying is that there is a real risk that won’t be all that happens. I would love for this game to succeed, because I think it has enormous potential, but these developers have a track record of having great ideas and then executing those ideas poorly. I sincerely hope that doesn’t lead to failure with Atlas. Just because something is popular at the moment doesn’t mean it can’t die fast. Also the devs vision at the end of the day has to be compatible with what enough people want to keep the game afloat. Me and you by ourselves can’t do it.

Whether the reviews are about gameplay or not continues to miss the most fundamental point, which is that regardless of why, if people stop playing in large enough numbers the game dies and it’s all moot, and between all of the previously listed factors, that’s a nonzero risk right now. I’m not really sure how much more plainly I can state it. The cool kids in that context are not remotely the issue.

DNL and PixArk are Snail games but not Wildcard. The people who developed those games have nothing to do with Atlas.

Okay but my point was don’t let debate over the merits of the Op’s complaints and suggestions obscure the core point about playerbase dissatisfaction. You proceeded to debate the merits of the OP’s complaints and ignore the core point. So let’s take a moment and examine how the Op’s core point applies to what you’ve said. I’ll even set aside obvious flaw in the logic of your point created when someone asks who is better equipped to handle the ghost ships and still go wherever they please, the Zerg or the small group? So you like the ghost ships. Fine. Has it escaped your notice that many do not? atlas is already carrying a 29% review rating on steam over the launch debacle. Wildly unpopular skill system changes, ghost ships making the waters untraversable to all but a few, creature overspawns making inland exploration exasperating. It’s not exactly alarmist to ask how many more unpopular events will it take before the game hits a critical mass of players bailing and then who cares about ghost ships because almost no one is playing?

The truth of this statement is the canary in the coal mine that survival related mechanics need tweaking. If people consider death the most efficient option instead of actually trying to survive in your survival MMO, you probably need to change some things.

The Op’s core point is that without customers, no game succeeds. That shouldn’t get lost in debate over the merits of particular suggested changes or what percentage of the playerbase may or may not want those changes, because it is both crucial and fundamentally true. Right now there is an awful lot of evidence that many people are enormously unhappy. As someone who has created a thread discussing the ever changing nature of Early Access and advising those who don’t care for it to wait for official release, I’m obviously someone who favors a degree of patience with EA games. No one however, is required to share my patience, and if people aren’t having fun they shouldn’t play, since fun is the whole point, right? The problem is if the devs offer a game state as part of the EA process that a majority of the playerbase don’t find fun and quit playing, then everything else becomes a moot point. Everyone saying this is part of EA, calm down (myself included) should keep this point in mind. It is entirely reasonable to say “Hey these changes make the game not fun anymore.” Now there is a rational mature way to make that point, and there is an angry ragequiiter profanity laced all caps way to express that. Take a wild guess which the devs are more likely to listen to. For the record the Op seems to be doing a reasonably good job of keeping it the former rather than the latter.

Couldn’t resist. Atlas is obviously not the real world, but few said it better than the incomparable Carlin.

No. No that’s not the issue at all, IN THIS THREAD. Look, if you want to make a thread to discuss that issue, you should feel free. No one is stopping you. I made this thread to discuss the reality of change in an EA game , to forwarn players who may be less familiar with the process that more change is inevitable. The only reason I even addressed your statements about Ark’s EA was to establish that not everyone’s experience of EA was similar to your perception. I see now that was a mistake because it seems to further encouraged you to focus on things not germaine to the central point of the thread. You are focusing on the particulars of this change, comparing it to particulars of Ark’s EA, and making pointed criticisms. All of that is fine, but it is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the process of Early Access, not complaints about the effects of recent changes. Please stick to the thread topic instead of trying to drag it in directions you want to discuss.

I don’t entirely disagree with this. It is completely debateable whether the movement towards EA is a good one overall for the industry, particularly for the player experience. I think there are points for and against.