boomervoncannon

Sounds like a good compromise suggestion.

Being able to admit mistakes and being accountable for past behavior is a sign of maturity. Would that everyone on the forums also met this standard. But since Perci brought up the point of your early days, it did get me thinking. One of the main things you and I clashed early on was your initial stance on GrapeCard™ as a company (as an obvious extension of Wildcard studios). You decried them as evil, made disparaging comments about Ark and predicted more of the same for Atlas iirc. Looking back the thing I find curious is that over time you seem to have gone from bashing the game and mostly it's developers, to heavily anticipating the game's release on console. Now I do not subscribe to the view being bandied about in this thread that you're a troll. To me a troll posts with the intent to provoke an emotional reaction. However I might disagree with your views at times, they certainly come across as views you genuinely believe and your sustained posting activity over time suggests you're legitimately invested in Atlas (trolls tend to have short attention spans, they are short con rather than long con operators). This is the point I am genuinely curious about: as Atlas has endured a rough launch and flagging activity, you seem to have become more supportive of the game than less. What has changed for you from those early days when everything Wildcard was cancer?

Your statement is an admission you didn't fundamentally understand the nature of Early Access, since Early Access is access to a game still under development and wipes are a perfectly valid part of the development process. To be fair, some of the responsibility for your lack of understanding lies with the industry, which so far has chosen not to clearly define to the consumer what Early Access is or set standards for what qualifies a game for Early Access status. Thus you as the consumer are left with the Early Access label slapped across products of wildly varying levels of completion and quality. Given that you are not the first nor the hundredth person to post here making this complaint, I would suggest part of the level of transparency companies should seek when using the early access model is to clearly state upfront before a consumer purchases the game that wipes are a possibility in this Early Access game. Given the significant backlash Atlas has experienced over this, I think this would be a prudent move on GrapeCard™ and other developers part even though some of the responsibility for understanding what you were purchasing lies with you. @Jatheish do you think Jeremy and Jess would agree this is an advisable best practice going forward, or would they prefer for many players to continue to quit in frustration because GrapeCard™ chose to be part of the problem where EA is concerned rather than part of the solution?

I thought you say "If it's not scottish, it's crap!"

4k hours in Ark, been playing MMO and other online games since 2004, watched the industry change over time from paid beta testers who were responsible for product testing and closed and open betas for players that were intended to kick the tires so to speak, to the current popular model of put something out that might be a nearly finished product that just needs a little polish (Satisfactory) to launching a barely playable thing you haven't even fully figured out your design concept for and seem to be making up as you go on the fly (Atlas), both marketed as Early Access. Yes I'm familiar with the industries history and what came before. 2004 long enough for you?

Favorite post of the day.

If the person with the map takes it off their hot bar before getting close enough to spawn, the AOD won’t spawn.

Curious how that situation arose...

See? This is why the proletariat must rise up to overthrow the capitalist imperialist swine! Workers of the world unite!! Also could somebody loan me money for a new broom? My old one broke from improper use. *awkwardly clears throat*

Your NPC is broke because as an evil capitalist, you force him to buy his own tools to do the job. You should be supplying the broom, it’s your ship that needs cleaning. Stop trying to distract us from what’s really going on here Ebeneezer Scrooge.

Several thousand years of human warfare could be construed as a strong argument to the contrary. However it has been my experience that toxic behavior is more common in pvp than pve, so on that we agree.

I can second this. You might find the existing mechanic mildly annoying. It is vastly preferable to what existed without it.

Not to nitpick here, but we are NOT beta testers and I wish people would stop conflating the two. Beta testers are paid employees, you and I are paying customers. We get to play and therefore test whatever part of the game we choose, beta testers are assigned highly specific tasks to test specific game components. The two are not interchangeable terms because there are meaningful differences. The gaming industry would love for you and I to think of ourselves as beta testers because if we do so, they have succeeded in turning what was once a cost center for them into a profit center. This is highly beneficial to them, whether it is beneficial to you and I is highly debatable and I’m inclined to say mostly net negative.

Interesting. And good to know, thanks for sharing. Would be great to get dev confirmation on this one way or another.

You are not wrong sir. Not by a longshot.

Again, you're not taking into account that it's not just that one person. It's everyone who ever has a map that spawns where your structure is. As long as your structure is there, the problem is not going to go away. So it isn't the 4 hours against your 700 hours, it's all the accumulated hours of everyone who ever comes to your spot with a map, and the value of those maps they can't use. If the map is low value and thus the trip was short, likely the owner does just throw it away. I have done this multiple times. But a high quality map is a different matter. Suggesting that people wait until you are online (if you're already online this problem doesn't occur) isn't a very practical solution because the other player has no idea when you're going to be online or whether your playtimes intersect with theirs. They also have no way of knowing if you are a reasonable person who would let them in or not. They are faced with essentially stopping their gameplay until you both are online at the same time with no advance of knowledge of when that might be or whether it will be fruitless if you turn out not to allow them in. As Demon Meliodas take on the situation seems to suggest, even if you did so you'd be entirely within your rights as an owner of the island to not allow them in for no good reason. IMO this is the fundamental flaw in his approach. As for dismissing the notion that people will sail 7 grids for one map. If the map is 7 grids away it is probably a very high end map, and yes it is possible for higher end maps to be this far away from where one acquires them. Thus if they sail that far, they have a lot of time and effort invested into getting to where you are, and because of the value of the map, asking them to discard it is not a very practical or considerate approach. I would agree that pitching a fit over a common quality map found in the same grid would be a bit self centered, but those aren't the only scenarios that are going to occur. On the other hand, there is a positive reason for you to want people to come and do their maps. If you put down a taxation bank, you get 20% of all gold made from maps added into the bank. This isn't subtracted from what players get when they do the map, its free money to you. I don't know about you, but that fact alone would make it worth it to me to accomodate treasure seekers by not blocking access. At the end of the day the situation exists because of poorly thought out game design and lack of thorough internal testing, but to be fair ironing out stuff like this is part of why Early Access is a thing. I dont' think it really should be in this instance if the testing was up to par, but for the time being here we all are. Pve players can decide whether to work towards compromise like rational adults, or engage in emotional outbursts that are the hallmarks of the immaturity so many pve players like to accuse pvp players of exhibiting. As someone who has experienced both sides of the problem, I'm of the view that players building on pillars is the most practical and equitable solution I'm aware of until hopefully the system is reworked to mitigate the problem.

Let's think about this statement for a minute. Vegetto's argument essentially boils down to his right as a player to build where he chooses undisturbed trumps your right as a player to do your treasure map content. There is a component to the discussion at hand about how responsible the devs are for designing the game in such a way that it creates this situation, for now let's put that aside on the assumption that the devs cannot easily resolve or restructure this issue in the short term. Vegetto I understand you are upset about the loss of your assets and the time invested in them. You have my sympathy. In your shoes I would also be unhappy and upset. However, when you tell other players they should simply throw the map away if they arrive at the marker and it is built upon, doing so is not materially different from others telling you that you should build elsewhere. In both cases it is players placing their own desires ahead of others. Here is the thing that is materially different: You get decide where and how you build. Players don't get to decide where their maps are located and are unaware whether the location is blocked until they arrive, sometimes from very far away. When your position is they should throw the map away, you aren't putting your desires against user1's or whatever player spawned his map in your pen, you are putting your desires ahead of every player who ever gets a map in that spot. User1 put forward a very practical and sensible suggestion. When players discover they have built on a spawn marker, if they do not wish to move, they should rebuild the structure on pillars. This would allow access to the map location, and the onetime inconvenience to you is, in the grand scheme of things preferable to the ongoing inconvenience to the entire rest of the player base. You would also get the benefit in doing so of protecting yourself against future actions like you just experienced. Demon Meliodas can go on about player owners rights all he wants but the fact is that won't change the anger of players upset when they can't reach the spawn point for the map, anger that is understandable when the map is high value, travel has been far, and the sacrifice of throwing the map away is considerable. The reality for you and players in your situation is, you can either rebuild to remove the problem, or stamp your foot in the ground and stand on your rights, and risk having the same thing happen again. Again, Vegetto you have my sympathies. I have lost tames and bred tames to any number of problems in Ark and Atlas both, due to player created situations and none player created situations. It's disheartening, I totally get that. At some point the devs may choose to rework the system in such a way to solve this problem, but until then we must deal with it as players. Speaking of devs, @Jatheish, I'm sorry but the fact this problem exists strongly suggests that either there is no internal testing of Atlas or that it is woefully inadequate, as this is the sort of thing that should have shown up if not at the drawing board stage, then certainly in early pve internal tests as problematic. If you allow building of structures and don't allow other players to destroy those structures, then it's not exactly a blinding insight for someone sitting in a brainstorming session to say "okay, but what if a treasure map spawns inside that structure?" Could we please get a response as to whether this is something that is being looked at by the development team, and given it's fundamentally long term problematic nature, if not an explanation of why? At the very least could we get a review of the treasure map spawn point pool to eliminate obviously highly desirable build locations for players such as on wide open flat land or scenic overlooks by waterfalls etc? For everyone involved in this discussion, calling each other griefers and other pejorative terms doesn't solve the problem, it just makes discussion less productive and compromise less acheivable. If you know someone more willing than less to compromise with someone decrying their character, I would like to meet them.

1. Your english is not bad at all, a bit of awkward phrasing here and there but I assure you it's worlds better than I could do in your native tongue. Thank you for making the effort to contribute your thoughts and feedback. 2. I thought you made a really great point that has been overlooked when you pointed out that by adding SP, the devs are sacrificing some future profitability by letting players opt for a game version where the incentive to spend money on cosmetics is dramatically lowered (fewer will buy the bling if they are the only ones looking at it). 3. I really like your suggestion of adding grottos and caves for places players can put hidden bases. I think this would fit nicely with the pirate theme and also have positive gameplay options, it looks like a win/win. Devs I second the request for grottos and caves. 4. Welcome to the boards. We look forward to hearing more from you.

I would prefer a system that let me put priority within mat categories. I always try to use mats that can be found wherever I am first, since I have to do the least work to acquire them, but since this is all hypothetical anyway and seems unlikely, I'm really just saying what color I want my Tesla painted. (Duke blue, if Elon is reading this)

Also there are trade offs to living in the harsher environments. Pre wipe I lived in o2 and discovered one of the benefits of living there was that 4 of 6 metals were within a zone or two's reach tops. Given that higher tier gear requires a wider spread of mats and given that the weight of metal and it's widespread need in crafting (crystal is also heavy but needed for comparitively few recipes) makes moving it around in qty a logistical problem, having that many different kinds of metals within easy reach is a non insignificant benefit.

This.

IIRC, at that point Splus was already by a wide margin the most popular mod for the game and the developers had already told the playerbase that some aspects of it were going to be incorporated into the base game. Atlas's developers could have chosen to intergrate Splus's functionality into the new game, but for reasons I'm not privy to, chose not to. I have over 4k hours in Ark. Splus was a game changer for that game. legit point. Ark did not have Atlas's multiple mats within a category. For all I know this may be part of the reason the devs chose not to include this functionality, but as a layman I'm not inclined to think that incorporating priority option menus would be too much of a hassle.

This is a great suggestion. Something very similar exists in Ark, if you're familiar with the mod Structures Plus. I would really like to see this implemented here, however the fact that Structures Plus was partially integrated into Ark before Atlas ever launched means GrapeCard™ could have chosen to include it in the base version of Atlas but didn't, which unfortunately doesn't leave me super optimistic they will going forward. Would love to be wrong about that, as it's a great QOL advantage. C;mon devs, give us Splus-Atlas version

You make a lot of statements characterizing me as arrogant and going on about intolerance, yet all I've done is offer my own opinions and counter arguments to what you put forward. Whether I'm behaving in a civilized manner is not germane to whether I'm responsible for knowing your entire posting history, so that is a red herring. I have not once attacked you, merely offered a differing view from your own. If your psyche is so fragile that it can't handle having your ideas and opinions challenged without seeing that as an attack and characterizing the person doing so as arrogant (presumably the arrogance derives from having the temerity not to see things your way), then I would suggest you're going to find the internet in general pretty disagreeable. I see no reason not to repeat an argument when it's sound and you haven't offered a sound counter, just instead call my character into question and cast aspersions about the kind of person I am instead of sticking to the merits of the debate. Again going back to the restaurant analogy, no one suggested anyone was telling the chef how to cook, so that's a strawman you've put forward, rather I characterized the nature of your feedback. Clearly you're less interested in having an actual debate about the issue than slinging mud at me because you've decided I'm some kind of awful human being. Since this is a public forum, I will leave others to form their own opinion of the type of person I am and say merely that your behavior leaves me uninterested in further discussion. Enjoy your Atlas adventure wherever it takes you.

Shhhh. You’re making too much sense.