boomervoncannon

Except.

Disappointing to hear, given that a similar issue is long-standing with Ark. The good news is that compared to other components like RAM or GPU, hard drive space is relatively cheap even in SSD form.

I can't speak for Atlas's ingame cats, but Richard Parker and Miss Cadence having been making themselves a nuisance this morning with their unreasonable demands that I get up and feed them their canned food. Cats completely fail to respect the concept of the weekend, or sleeping in. They are all up in my grill, as the kids say these days.

okay we won't tell you. Ah. This seems a bizarre reason to hold up a reward, not that I care much either way. Wouldn't it just be rewarded to anyone who logged in after the wipe, or within the period prior to the wipe after it was annouced? It seems pretty bush league to announce a reward based upon login presence and then not be able to track who qualifies or not.

Let me preface what I'm about to say by making clear that it is not an absolute or binary thing I'm describing, but more a tendency or a sort of sliding scale. I have noticed over the years that games which focus on PVP tend to have low levels of immersion. I think there is a perfectly valid reason for this. Balancing PVP content appropriately is a mostly technical pursuit within the realm of game development, wheras creating immersion tends to fit in with storytelling as a game design function. Storytelling tends to be generally regarded as part and parcel of the pve experience of a game, so even in games that have both pvp and pve, most development teams tend to focus more heavily on one aspect or the other of their game. I don't think there is much question that Atlas is being designed primarily with pvp in mind, and I say that as a mostly pve player in Atlas. Keeping this in mind, it has been my experience that it is a rare game indeed that is able to execute both pvp and an immersive storytelling experience well simultaneously. One is a more technical challenge while the other is about creative asthetics and artistic craftsmanship instead of numbers crunching. It would be great if Atlas suceeded in doing both at a high level, but I think right now this development team is perhaps struggling to craft a game that is compelling for either pvp or pve players, so if I were you I would tend to temper my expectations for a more immersive experience. I say this as someone who would love to see all the things you describe come to pass in Atlas, as I would very much like to play a version of Atlas that had them as well. I just think we shouldn't hold our breathe waiting for those things for the reason I've put forth. But one can always hope, and it's good you have contributed your desires to the discussion, because this development team seems to be looking to it's playerbase right now for input on how we would like to see the game shaped going forward.

Fixed.

In that case I will opt for the hat.

*blinks* Was something beyond the endless possibilities of a clean slate promised? I’m asking because I don’t recall anything but I could have just forgotten.

638451. 3 guys just quit cause you didn’t pay them. *wonders if this is a WAI change or bug.*

I'm in eastern temperate biome on NA PVE and see a decent number of ships and structures. It's certainly not crowded and when I check there are never more than a handful of folks in whatever grid I'm in. Conceptually I would be against a single player mode for a massive world MMO like Atlas aspires to, but at this point with the low player counts in the game, I think they are struggling to find a market and a playerbase so I can't entirely fault them for throwing it out there. I'd prefer they didn't spend development time and resources on it, but it's not my call and I can see why they might decide to.

1. You're making assumptions about things you do not know. I didn't argue this position because I make a habit of changing my gamma. In point of fact, the only time I've ever changed it was yesterday, to illustrate the point. I argued the position not because it's something I do, but because your position isn't supportable by facts or reason, and I wanted to make that clear. Your posts in this discussion have helped make that abundantly clear. 2. If I were changing my gamma, I would do so with a perfectly clear conscience that would give not a moment's notice to the moral high horse you've put yourself upon, for a very simple reason. The fact that the devs, given the choice to include or not include the ability to alter the gamma, chose to give the players the ability to do so tells me all I need to know about whether they consider it acceptable. When this plain and obvious fact has been pointed out to you by other posters, you have answered only with the most absurd and unconvincing argument about player's ability to alter the gamma on their screens anyway. Please don't tell me you actually believe anyone besides yourself buys this half baked rationalization. 3. As far as what the rules do or don't explicitly state, that's exactly the reason why players should and do assume that if it's not clearly prohibited it's acceptable. Your entire understanding of the term cheating has repeatedly been demonstrated to be flawed in this discussion because you conflate a violation of rules, which yes, need to be explicitly stated and clear so that all who are playing can equally understand them, with moral notions of right and wrong. 4. You've conjured this premise out of thin air that the developers, as the creators of the game and enforcer of it's rules (remember why you couldn't ban me yesterday), don't actually decide what is cheating, the players do. I find this notion bizarre and disconnected from reality. Have fun sitting on your high horse declaring the rest of us cheaters, I doubt anyone is paying you any mind because you've had absolutely every chance to make your case in this discussion and I'd be shocked if anyone with half a brain finds anything you've said here convincing. 5. The rules don't need to state everything you can or can't do, they just state what you can't do, that's how rules work, and that's why they are of perfectly readable length. I read them six months ago when I started playing Atlas and I don't recall seeing anything which came remotely close to supporting your position. That's why I asked you to cite the passage you felt supported it, something you've failed completely to do and have instead offered a half baked rationalization instead. At the end of the day, let's be clear what your position is: You're looking down your nose morally at people who use a setting provided by the devs in the options, a word which should clue you in as to their feelings about it's use, to make their gameplay easier. Really?

If by these systems you mean vitamins AND cooking, then awesome. I think the cooking system in this game has significant potential, but it needs a lot of love in the form of more depth and raison d'etre. Right now it seems many players ignore it because they consider it not worth the investment of time and skill points.

Ships for a ship game? That's just crazy talk.

Why when both can be true? Note that the second quote says nothing about having to listen/read. I will say something on Realist's behalf that I think is worth noting: He generally refrains from insults and a lot of other over the top borish behavior common to internet forums. Whatever you may think of what he's saying, and let the record show I've probably disagreed with him as much as anyone here in the past six months, he does his part to keep the discourse civil, which is more than can be said for a lot of folks on the internet. That is something I respect.

“Hell is other people.” Jean Paul Sartre ” I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Voltaire

A) You’re making a false equivalency argument by equating cheating to morality. Cheating is not inherently a question of morality as illustrated by the question of penalties in sports. You may not be a sports fan, but doubtless you are aware that sports exist and that they have rules and sometimes in the course of play players commit infractions. These infractions are not “wrong” in a moral sense any more than changing your gamma in a game that makes it an options setting is. B) You’re declaring things to be common sense from a moral perspective but even morality isn’t a matter of common sense but belief that is personal. Witness the legions of people who hold strongly differing moral beliefs on any number of issues like abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment or bbq sauce. If morality were merely a matter of common sense, then nearly everyone would agree on these things but they don’t. C) You are entirely free to believe that changing gamma in a game is cheating, or even that to do so is morally wrong. I would argue that your understanding of cheating vs unfair leaves something to be desired in this instance but that’s my own opinion. What you can’t do is enforce your belief on others and I can prove it. I’ve just changed the gamma in my settings. Ban me.

So you’re ignoring unofficial servers when at present there are over 45k Ark servers in existence, about 1k of which are officials. Got it.

No one has asserted that it is, but what I am asserting is that if it is not specifically forbidden it is not cheating. The problem with what you are suggesting is the notion the players get to determine what is cheating. Sorry but I disagree. Lebron James does not get to alter or interpret the rules of basketball, nor does the NBA players association as a group.

How exactly have I insulted you? By not agreeing with you? Ignore all you want, but the basis of our disagreement is me asking you to cite the portion of the official rules which supports your position, you refusing to do so while talking in circles in a manner which ignores this simple central request to support your argument, and then declaring that the devs don’t get to define cheating in their own game, the players do. Okay. Whatever.

Then my guess is you haven’t talked with that many Ark players by comparison. I have over 4K hours in Ark. Over 250 people that I had direct contact with for my private server cluster (which was whitelisted and you could only join the whitelist after a personal voice interview with me) played on the following maps: Ragnarok, The Island, The. Center, Crystal Isles, Aberration, Scorched Earth (One of the servers rotated maps periodically). By a wide margin the most popular server was Ragnarok. I know because as server owner I had all the activity data at my fingertips. You may not like Ragnarok, but if I’m the only person you know of who does, chances are slim you knew very many Ark players outside your own acquaintances.

The reason we keep going in circles is because you claim your position is based on your reading of the rules. I’ve asked you thrice now to reference the specific passage which supports the notion that changing gamma is cheating. You’ve just said you’ve already done so, yet I just reviewed every post you’ve made to the thread and Insee no such citation of a specific passage. If I missed it, please repost it, otherwise my statements speak for themselves.

This is the statement I am referencing when I say you applied your opinion to the playerbase as a whole. Note the specific phrase “no one played on for more than a few days.” Many many people played on these maps for a lot longer than a few days, that is what I’m pointing out. The fact you don’t like them I take no issue with.

As I said in my first post, please cite for me the passage in the Terms of Service or Code of Conduct that support your position that changing of gamma is cheating. The widely held default assumption in gaming is if you can do it in the game, it’s fine unless developers or gm’s declare it otherwise. Given that changing gamma is actually explicitly included in the options setting, common sense would suggest the devs consider it allowable unless explicitly stated otherwise. Further, you state that I’m of the position other people don’t get to have an opinion when this directly contradicted by my own statements “ you are of course free to your own opinion.” so this statement is not supported by the facts. You also have decided to imply that I insult those I disagree with and employ name calling. This is also not supported by the facts as those familiar with my posting history are aware.

The difference between my opinion and yours is that my position is based upon the game’s official rules. Yours is based only on your own feeling of what you consider fair. In the same way that LeBron James does not get to call fouls on opposing players, you and I as players are not the arbiters of what constitutes cheating. Since cheating is by definition a violation of rules, the party that sets the rules is the one that determines cheating, in this case GrapeCard. I would suggest that if you were to substitute the word unfair for cheating, you would find I would take no issue with the statements you’ve made because you’re entirely free to declare something unfair in your own opinion, but neither you nor I have the authority to declare anything cheating in Atlas beyond what Wildshot has defined.

There are people who’s opinions I hold in high regard that feel modding was the the key to Ark’s success. I’m personally of the view that multiple factors were involved, not the least of which was making an easily accessible game with dinosaurs that could be tamed, but modding certainly seems to have worked out to be a strong plus for the game. The he reason I’m less optimistic for Atlas is I’m afraid it’s inauspicious beginning my fail to attract many or the most talented modders.