microphobe

They really need a mooring point that you can build on top of foundations/ceilings. Does exactly the same an an anchor on the ground but alongside a jetty. I have thought about the same thing in making a pirate settlement out in the middle of the water but there are few places where the water is shallow enough. Being able to build with the sub may be an option for this sort of thing as well in being able to place large pillar structures.

But hopping from free port to free port isn't really the way to go, KOS is about the worst thing that ever happens with these game because it absolutely destroys the game play, sinking a ship should be hard, like really hard, nobody did this outside of war because a sunken ship is gone, can't loot something at the bottom of the ocean. Pirates didn't burn ships, they didn't sink ships, most ships just furled sails at the first cannon shot and let them take what they wanted because death is a bad thing. Being able to respawn on a bed as soon as you are killed is an awful mechanic. Imagine you had to sail back out to a ship in order to sail it back if you died while on board. Bet your bum people would be looking after their health, food, water and vitamins then instead of just shooting each other in the head each time they are thirsty. What about a 10 minutes respawn on ships on a bed? What if people were laying in wait on the ship you are about to plunder, if they shoot me as I board, they will have enough time to go in and break my bed and steal my ship long before I could ever get back to it. Make death mean something, not just have it a way to fill your stomach.

There are two markets, the market in the free port and the market on an island. Free port markets are for people who don't want randoms coming ashore/sailing into their harbour and walking around their town because of aggressive defences and/or don't want the risk of losing their shop in a pvp attack, they will be juicy targets filled with gold and resources. Island markets can be placed anywhere on the island for people to walk up to and purchase things. Both types need to be stocked by the player meaning that someone will actually have to move the resources over to them and collect the gold from them at some point making the free ports useful because they cannot be destroyed, but also likely to be pvp hotspots in the surrounding tiles as most ships going in and out will be carrying booty. They said there would be a pvp timer for dropping anchor in your safe harbour so that you couldn't just run away from pvp. I would provide a source but it's in the first video I think and I cbf watching that again.

I'm only going to address part of your post, you phallus and it's size is your own business. Factions don't force someone to join, this is where I see the real pirates living. On the fringe of the empires, a small crew of competent fighters who make hit and run attacks in small fast ships. Take what you can and run before the xxxx navy arrives. Make sure you use bar shot to take out the sail not sink them because the navy may be there before you can dive down and salvage anything and then it would all be for naught. About territory control I 100% agree and have said the same thing many times. Without resources tied to specific zones and factions, trade and travel will not happen like they should. If I can get everything I need for 90% of what I do in the surrounding 8 tiles of the map, I wont need to go anywhere very often. The ever unpopular fast travel discussion. I am against this because primarily it makes no sense to be able to blip across the map in a survival game, wheres the survival if you teleport. Tie the respawn to the closest bed only. No choice about where you respawn. I get that some people can't play long enough in a single sitting to travel across the map but that's is where the "all the time" pvp falls in a heap in this sort of game. If a casual player can't be safe when they log out then casuals wont play and that kills a huge number of the player base. It is a problem and one that will continue to kill off players until it is fixed. Ships are too easily sunk while people are sleeping, the simplest solution to this is that they become immune to damage for 24 hours after anchoring 10 minutes after anchoring. So 10 minutes after you drop anchor you are PvP safe for 24 hours, if you log in and raise/lower the anchor, another 24 hours. It would allow people to travel without the huge risk of logging out, something that seriously inhibits travel in the pvp server.

The overlapping was mostly from sea claims overlapping land claims, I would still believe they would remove sea claims from the new system.

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.

Pie, it is easy to get cake but pie a relative rarity where I am. The common is easily dismissed whereas the rarity is treasured.

The flag becomes contestable on pve when the upkeep isn't being paid, if the tax bank decays then the upkeep can't be paid, the island loses settlement status and the flag is up for grabs.

this is why I am sure that pve will have a decay/repair box because otherwise on an active island the bank will be full enough to pay the upkeep even if the owner is gone.

The reality of the PvP claim system is this. We know what people are like in this game, because we have played this game. Being the owner of an island gives you the ability to destroy peoples buildings/cannons/whatever without recourse. What this means is there are a couple different scenarios that can play out. 1. Benevolent Dictator. This is the best case scenario, the company who genuinely wants to play the game and have fun, they like the idea of owning an island and managing it to make it flourish. The company will work hard to keep the island clear of pillars and spam, they will clean up the sites when people have left the island or quit the game to open the space for more people. They will have a reasonable tax rate that covers the upkeep and a little bit more for their troubles in keeping the island clean. People will flock to these islands because they are good, to the point that the owner company has to start turning people away, they will become prosperous paradise worlds ripe for conquer, the residents will help to maintain the owners hold because they like it and fear someone worse. Here's hoping they can. 2. Malicious Dictator. Not the worst but certainly not the best option, these guys will do the work keeping the island clean but only because they want to maintain their tax income which will be high but not high enough for people to leave on mass because they already have established bases and are familiar with the island. Besides it's a hassle to move everything particularly when you don't know what the new place will be like. People will stay, but they will always be on the lookout for a better place and will never truely "settle" 3. Absentee Owner An owner company that simply just owns the land, they have a well defended tax bank (or whatever other item they use to hold the flag) but not much else. They wont keep the land clear and will have a high tax rate for whoever is willing to build on their land as they want to squeeze what they can from as many as they can while they can. These islands will be pillared paradises with all the good stuff spawn blocked. 4. The forbidden zones Companies who actively uproot and demo anyone non-company who settles on the island, they wont need walls, just cannons and a pick axe to walk through and destroy anything they find. 5. The conquered paradise These will be the real tragedies of Atlas. An opposing company will target the owner company and wipe them out, they will then claim the land and proceed to destroy EVERYTHING on the island that belongs to a group that refuses to submit and pay tribute to the "new rulers". This will be easy because none of the other inhabitants will have defensive structures or be able to retaliate because the PvP is turned off against the owner company. I'm sure there will be good islands, at least I hope there will be. But I am 100% sure there will be wastelands and hostile tribes holding people to ransom. Similar situations will occur in PvE servers because well.

This is where servers like DarksideRP come in, PvP with rules and active admins, want to build a New England maritime village, post it up and I'm sure there will be a number of people who are interested in that sort of thing and would be willing to work towards making it happen.

This game will only do well on console if they iron out a lot of the issues on pc first. console is more casual so I would expect more anti random and offline pvp stuff in future as well. In terms of numbers they really don't mean anything during this phase of ea. This is about getting the core game mechanics running in a way that works best for the majority. It is expected that a "bad" patch will drop numbers and a "good" one will bring them back. The numbers won't matter for another 6-12 months when the game should be less volatile and people can just worry about playing not worry about which bug is going to delete what.

yes but that isn't the section that speaks to structure decay. remember this is pve and the only way to clear litter off the beaches was to claim the land and demo the buildings, if there is no way to do that then the game is headed for another wipe in a few months as the coastal land will all be gone. the land holder can only demo within a certain time frame after that there is no power he has to demolish things. I'm pretty sure they will be keeping the structure repair box and structure decay from their lawless system otherwise it will again be a pillar paradise.

the solution is usually never a hard cap. It is almost always better to de-incentivise he placement of heavy cannons through things like the reduced weight while gun ports are closed etc. Imagine how effective that would be if the cannons actually had an appreciable weight like they should. how many shotguns would you see if cannons weighed 300kg instead of 100? I'm guessing a hell of a lot less. If a cannon weighed 300 with the port open and 160 with it closed, most people would have only cannon ports and one pursuit/follow cannon because otherwise they would move like slugs and be unable to actually chase prey.

I have had crew go invisible before. The only thing that fixed it was zoning.

I could be wrong but I was under the impression they were keeping both the new island claim and the structure decay because the landlord sure isn't going to want to spend hours blasting away at someone's base after they have quit the game or just left the island and left their buildings there. With the new island claim nobody can just claim the space and seize the building anymore so demo needs to be built into the system.

Nice to see points sailing way over your head lol, some posters just never actually read a whole post at all do they. The post was about the ability to set purchase as well as sale prices in player shops. Not actually selling anything, that would be pretty clear by the fact that no actual location etc information was given but hey trolls be trolls and nothings going to stop you from being a jerk, except maybe the time that your girl, if you ever get one, sits you down and says, I'm sorry I just can't take it anymore. All your negativity just brings me down, I just want to go out to a nice meal without you criticising the waiter, or the food. It's always so much of a drain to be around you. I'm sorry but I'm leaving. At that point I hope you stop and think back and say to yourself damn maybe I should learn to actually read a post every once in a while instead of just being a dick.

But you aren't really a tenant because you aren't protected by rules or contractual obligations you are just on his property, peasant would also be a proper word, probably better than the others. A peasant pays the landholder for nothing but the fact that he owns the land, there is no responsibility to a peasant where there is to a tenant. If there were rules set up and contracts that would prohibit the landholder from removing you without notice or recompense or forcing you out in other ways then yes tenant would be acceptable. but even in PVE a bad landholder can still run people off their land for no reason and with no tangible recourse. A bad "yelp" review for a land holder is not really something that many people will see on the forums unless they dedicate a sub-forum to it.

The good thing about removing fast travel would be that it would improve in game trade, those who do not want to be away from their base for a couple days sailing would have to buy those distant mats from travelling merchants who only had a boat and lived on that or maybe had a port city set up somewhere where they would do their own trading and then deliver to people who have made requests through the trade forums, or even have the player shops be able to buy goods not just sell them. I have 5000 softwood for sale at 50g per stack, I want 500 dark wood for 200g per stack, Wouldn't be that hard to add in. It would mean that going out to do adventures had real consequences if something happened back at home.

Perhaps "thrall" is a more appropriate term, slaves don't get to keep anything they make or earn as it all belongs to their master. A thrall just lives under someone else power and is forced to do what they are told for fear of repercussions and can eventually buy their freedom from their master.

largely the same as the hex grid method except there will be less flags in total but it restricts a person from claiming just coastline areas. In reality there is little use for non-coastal land except gathering and I would anticipate if they used a limited flag numbers option very few people would claim non-coastal land.

Settlement owners can freely damage other characters and structures on their island.

We all know what it's like, and it's sad but like 90% of the issues could have been fixed with a hard cap of 5 flags per player. Play solo, 5 flags, Join a company, you can place your 5 flags wherever they want you to but you still have to place them, when you leave, those flags go pop and the land is up for grabs again. Want to claim somewhere new? "You have reached your maximum allowed claimed territory, placing this flag will remove your first flag placed" Done and dusted, why is it so fkn hard for the devs that they insist on taxation without representation and a licence to grief.

We'll maybe, it depends on if they are keeping the structure decay or not. If they are keeping the structure decay eventually the bank will decay and the claim will become open again. If things no longer decay then you would have to wait for the bank to empty before it would stop paying the upkeep, on an active island that may never happen as the bank would keep getting refilled.

1-2 days is a long time to wait to see if your shipyard is going to be demolished. It will cause issues because players will have to build in leap frog stages. Build then wait a couple days, build, wait, build, wait. people in pve sand box games don't tend to like having their ability to build anything be dependent on a stranger. If they go through with the change I think there will be a huge landrush like before and then only the owner tribes will build anything but pillar spam as other tribes start setting out their "spaces". They will build a 4x4 with and wait to see if it survives. Once the countdown is over they will build a shipyard and wait till the countdown is over. That's likely to be 4days before anything really gets done. People will be miserable caught between wanting to build and fear of it being destroyed.