boomervoncannon

Au contraire mon Freire. Not all changes in Ark were steady and gradual. My memory is quite different from yours. I remember reactions to the flyer nerf being every bit as volatile and extreme as the reactions here and now. And when the redwoods were put in? Thylocoleos being introduced? The level of “ZOMG GAME UNPLAYABLE I CANT FLY ANYWHERE!!!! WTFBBQSAUCE DEVS!” was cringe worthy. Since we’re talking about skill points, people wailed and moaned constantly about not being able to take every single engram, some are still to this day. I know of players who won’t play on a server unless skill points are bumped in ini to allow taking of all engrams. Look you’re still arguing math. Let me be clear here. I’m not arguing the merits of the change at all. Go back and look at my posts Nowhere have I said “This change is good. I like this change.” What I’m pointing out is that in EA change is to be expected, and further history and horse sense suggests that the most radical changes are likely to come earlier in the process. Most of them that turn out to be obvious bad ideas tend to get corrected back to something more reasonable fairly quickly. Although my long-standing opinion of Ark’s devs has been they tend to come up with great ideas, then fall short on the execution of those ideas. At the end of the day I’m not arguing for the change, merely for a tempering of attitudes in reacting to change and a resetting of expectation with regards to change in EA. This change will be but one of many. To the extent that people understand and are prepared for that fact, the process will improve for all concerned.

Whether true or not, this is an entirely seperate point from the one we were debating, which was you complaining about the patch to skill points affecting higher levels because of issues with math. It's like we were talking about whether Jordan or LeBron is the GOAT in basketball (it's still Jordan btw, and not close) and you suddenly say "Yeah but Tom Brady is a helluva quarterback." If what you say after this change of topic is true, then it will not take long for the developers to see that both in community reaction and in their back end data, and make adjustments. The key underlying point here is that someone like you, who claims to have participated in EA for both Ark and DNL (Ark on day one) should already understand this, and should know that EA isn't a place where players should expect fair, but should expect change. I'm one of those you're saying is screwed, yet somehow I've managed not to throw my hands in the air and run screaming in circles like it's the end of the world. It's EA, things will change. Sometimes they will get eaiser, sometimes they will get harder. Roll with it.

I'm not asserting that no one is at or near cap. Please pay attention to what I'm actually saying, not what you seem to be thinking in it's place. Nowhere have I said no one is at or near level cap. I'm well aware some number of folks are. My point, which you seem to continually be missing, is that most players are not, and therefore development focus is going to be on lower level issues. You're asking me if I was in Ark's EA week one. If you were, then you should recall that issues affecting lower level players in nearly all EA games are addressed before proceeding to stuff affecting higher levels. This is perfectly rational and normal, because out of the gate, developers have more data on what's happening at lower levels then as the overall playerbase progresses, they get more data about higher and higher levels. Congratulations, you are ahead of that curve, but most are not, that's why it's a curve. You yourself provide anecdotal evidence of this when you say that you stopped at 43 because you were so far ahead of your own group.

The evidence is nowhere near against me, or are you asserting that a majority of players in Atlas are currently sitting at level cap? Or were one week into Ark's EA launch. Because if you are asserting that, a whole lot of people are going to call shenanigans on you. It sounds like you are engaged in the fallacy of assuming your experience is typical of everyone's. It's not. Some people are sitting at level cap like you. Tons are not.

umm, I have 4k hours in Ark, and if you'd checked my steam profile (same name) you'd know that instead of saying things that make you look foolish... Also the things you state after asserting I've never played a game I've got 4k hours in have nothing to do whatsoever with my point that hitting level cap one week into EA isn't going to be where the majority of players are at that point. I would bet you dollars to donuts that one week into Ark's EA, a majority of players were not at whatever the cap was then either. Ark, had xp boost for explorer notes, Atlas has it for island discovery. I could argue it's easier to get to explorer notes than new islands, but that's beside the point. The underlying point is, sitting at level cap at this point in the process isn't where dev time is focused.

And in Early Access this is nothing to be concerned about. If you are actually familar with how Early Access games tend to work, you should be well aware that arriving at max level within one week of the launch of EA is likely to mean you're sitting a point where things are a bit wonky because development focus is going to be on lower level concerns at this point, where the majority of EA players sit, rather than at the top end for the moment, which will come later.

The "it's EA, they are testing" does fly, because they may be testing a specific thing at this point within the system. It's not necessary for testing to have all the math add up the way it would in a finished game, which seems to be the underlying assumption of your argument, that the numbers need to add up at max level. I would suggest that the fact that as you point out, the math isn't even particularly difficult, means they are well aware that the math doesn't add up and right now that isn't the point, which further suggests this is just a temporary testing iteration. Or are you suggesting that whole teams of people can acquire degrees in coding and game development, get themselves hired to a studio and produce something resembling a game WITHOUT having basic math skills equal to a fifth grader?

Having said that EA is a period of testing, change and iteration, I do tend to agree that EA changes which reduce players ability to test and try new things instead of expanding it, especially this early in the process, seems a poor direction. I would think if anything, they would want players to be able to try as many different skills as possible, in order to get data and feedback on the skills themselves. A change like this only has one obvious useful purpose that I can see, to force greater player interdependance. That doesn't feel like it needs to be the top priority one week into EA imo.

Let's just get this out of the way for all the people posting as if their hair is on fire over the skill tree changes. EA access is a period of testing different iterations in order to gather data and assess what approaches are most appropriate. The changes to the skill tree just implemented are part of this iterative process. Expect more changes. To everything. It is very much a part of the EA process. If this does not suit your temperament to know that anything and everything can change at the drop of a hat with a new patch, then you should strongly consider not playing Atlas until official launch, as Atlas is a game and the purpose of games is to have fun. What I hear a lot of people expressing is "I'm not having fun!" though not in those exact words. The problem unfortunately lies with the disconnect between their expectations and the reality of the Early Access process. Let me be blunt. With EA you are essentially paying to be a beta tester. Whether game studios should be charging for the privilege of beta testing is a seperate conversation and IMO one worth having, but the point here and now is that if you purchase a game during EA, ESPECIALLY the first week of EA, that is essentially what you are signing up for. If you find this unsuitable, undesirable or unpleasant, then by all means refund and seek your entertainment elsewhere. Life is short, don't waste your free time being frustrated over something you can't control, like a game's development. Find something you do enjoy and do that instead. Atlas will in all likelihood still be here in a couple years, and when it releases come back and see what it's like at a point when you can expect it not to change without warning.

If you think that the skill tree at release will be in the same state it's in one week into EA, then your understanding of the EA process is poor. EA is a period of testing and refining. They will try this, then they will iterate something else. If your friends were just starting with the expectation this was a finished game that they could play without all manner of changes and tweaks, including wipes (Yes, there will almost certainly be wipes, prepare yourself or go now), then their expectations were inconsistent with all available information. If the EA process does not suit you and your friends, then my suggestion is to play other things in the meantime and come back in 2 years or so when the game releases to see what it is then. THAT, and that alone, is the point at which you can and should reasonably expect no structural changes to systems like skill trees.

Did you look at the links provided that refuted the OP’s assertion? They did not “fall media silent” and saying so is in no way a fair characterization. Also please don’t quote things I didn’t say. I never said “EA games are not for you”. What I said was that I’m getting an impression to that effect. You took a perfectly reasonable statement by me, an impression I was getting, changed it slightly but significantly, then claimed it was an unreasonable claim. This is strawmanning.

No it is entirely par for the course for an EA game a week into 2 years of EA. As Nari pointed out, there will almost certainly be wipes so you would have lost the boat eventually in any case. It sounds like you are unfamiliar with the EA process and it isn’t for you.

Yep, and although it’s unfortunate, as previously stated stuff like this is part of the Early Access process. EA does not mean you are buying a finished game and should have that expectation. EA means you are paying less then half the retail price for the chance to preview the game early. I sympathize with the frustration of lost time invested. It has happened to me in the past on other EA titles and I’m fully aware it could be me tommorrow. If you are not prepared for this sort of thing as a possibilty and can’t accept it as a risk of playing during EA, then you should refund and check the game out in 2 years at release.

*says he has done research and patch notes say nothing and Twitter is useless* *within a few minutes direct evidence is linked refuting his assertions* *backpedals to I’ll believe it when I see it* I’m just getting the strong impression here that EA games are not for you. You get frustrated easily and start demanding things of devs as if they are unaware of what is going on with the game, then when people show direct evidence that they are aware of and looking to address things, you remain skeptical even though you own assertions were just debunked. You should probably refund and try the game again in a couple years at release.

What is max level anyway? I haven’t heard yet.

That sucks and I’m sorry it happened, but they are not going to rollback just to give you your boat back. This is why you are informed upfront that this is an EA game. EA games are in an unfinished state and one should assume that games a week into 2 years of projected EA are very likely to experience stuff like this. It is all part of the process.

Let’s not exaggerate. We’re talking about 3 skill points for a 60% reduction in drop rate when you get 2 skill points per level. How does this come anywhere close to “spending all the skills on micromanagement”? I have put all of my stat points into fortitude sure, but I’m pretty sure the 3 skill points is the bulk of the reduction. Also in that case we’re talking about all the points only up to level 12. I don’t know what level cap is, but I’m pretty sure it ain’t 20. It’s an investment of *some* points early in order to mitigate an annoying mechanic. Would I agree that it would be better if the default rate weren’t so over the top? Absolutely, but that’s what EA is for in part, for the devs to get our feedback on stuff like this.

You can find rubies inland and uphill on the smaller portion of Emerald refuge, not too far from where there are metal nodes on the beach.

So I know a lot of people are frustrated and struggling with the new vitamin mechanic. I was too at first. Here's two quick tips that will go a long way towards mitigating the vitamin issue. First, there are 3 skills in the general tree that specifically reduce vitamin depletion rate. If you get all three I think the collective reduction is 60% Combine this with priortizing leveling up fortitude, which also reduces depletion rate and gives temp protection and you will see results relatively soon. I am level 12 with all but one of my level up points in fort, and I have the 3 skills I mentioned. My vitamin depletion rate has gone from a PIA to completely maneagable if I have even decent access to the right foods. So remember A is grains like oregano, mint, etc etc B is cooked meat C is fruits like blackberries D is cooked fish meat I suspect cooking will wind up yielding further efficiencies but I haven't gone down that path yet. Hope this helps.

I haven’t come across any myself but other posters have said you get them from bottles floating at random in the ocean.

I have a carrot seed. It is my most prized possession.

ark might be listed as an MMO on steam, but no one who understands the differences structurally considers Ark an MMORPG. Do not make the mistake of pointing at Ark when talking about Atlas and thinking the two are or should be completely comparable. Atlas is billed as a MMORPG/survival hybrid. If it were intended to be just like Ark they would have just called it survival and left it at that. Atlas is intended to have far more of a massive game world with tons of players in the same world feel, whereas Ark was endless iterations of a core concept. This is why I find the decision to allow modding and private servers to be a curious one, as it works against encouraging everyone to play in a small number of worlds. The two biggest hallmarks of an MMORPG that require lots of players are economy and endgame raiding. To the extent that Grapeshot allows/encourages players to play outside of officials, they are shooting themselves in the foot with regards to enhancing these aspects by having as many players being a part of the same game world as possible. At this point the decision is head scratcher from where I sit, but perhaps there is some as yet unrevealed aspect of Atlas's design that will address this in some way. Only time will tell.

Ed Zachary. It’s a pirate game. What do pirates need in order to *be* pirates? Merchant shipping. How do you get merchant shipping in an MMO? By forcing people to move stuff from where it is to where it’s needed.

The only thing I disagree with in your post is the notion they would all be home if everything were working smoothly. I think if you’re a developer with half a brain and you launch the week of Christmas, you tell everyone to expect to work through the holiday, because there’s just no way everything will be smooth and you know it. Granted it could have been tons better than it was, but I don’t think anyone at Grapeshot had any illusions about sitting at Homs on Christmas the moment a mid December launch was announced. The rest of your post is spot on. They are def in damage control mode and time is of the essence. I hope they right the ship but this was not a good launch and especially with MMO’s, a botched launch can be potentially fatal. Only time will tell.

So I have a friend that will be joining me ingame tommorrow. If I increase crew capacity on my raft, is there anything she can do as a second crewman beyond just be on the raft? Because if not I think she should get her own raft so we have 2.