wildbill

On 4/16/2019 at 4:06 PM, Small said:

discord is http:/discord.gg/c8vbXUK.  

A link that works?

Where is this server located? I'm curious about rates and mods installed too.

I think we could have one that you need to color, like this:

https://images.app.goo.gl/CEazH36x7dfpHymD9

Logging out has worked for me, just always log out when the ship is at anchor, not when it is sailing. That seems to work better. Stuff does fall off boats I think though. I've lost a few tames. I think that is what happened to them.

9 hours ago, Percieval said:

Jesus christ, it’s a general discussion, we can talk about pony’s if you wanted to. I’m saying something to proof what Atlas’ devs are doing by giving examples that are done across the whole gaming section. Gheheh. 

OK, I see. We are now talking about ponies. No thread topic here, I'm clear on that now.

Just now, Percieval said:

I wasn’t even talking about atlas specific? It were just numbers for the example. 

This topic has so gone off topic, I don't even know what anyone is discussing any more 

You'd think the topic would in general be Atlas, but you'd be wrong 

2 hours ago, Percieval said:

Where did I say the atlas servers can hold 1000 players? 

You said:

What? I think there’s a misunderstanding here. I’m saying pretty much every game dev says like; “every server can hold 1000 players” although only 200 players are on them max. And yes they can hold 1000 but then it almost breaks and is completely unplayable. Even though the 1K is still factual correct. 

Sounds like you are saying "every server can hold 1000 players".

This could be that the way Atlas uses the word "server" is very confusing. Each grid on the official server network is a server. But also they say the North American server, which consists of 225 grids (servers) is also a server. So which were you referring to?

13 hours ago, Percieval said:

What? I think there’s a misunderstanding here. I’m saying pretty much every game dev says like; “every server can hold 1000 players” although only 200 players are on them max. And yes they can hold 1000 but then it almost breaks and is completely unplayable. Even though the 1K is still factual correct. 

Where the heck did you hear that? Last I heard, they were optimistic that 200 could be on a server, although I think that is after they optimize. I would guess more like 100 in the current state, but haven't seen anyone state the actual amount on a server and it will still run smoothly.

If you do the math, they said 40,000. So 40,000 / 225, is 178. Not anywhere near 1,000.

1 hour ago, Caine said:

The caves of powerstone is a joke my friend. Craft a good maze and shield then clear the whole cave. Easy shit. You can also burn the whole area to ashe. You don't even need good gear. People farming the cave for gold btw cause it's easy loot lol. 

 

Edit: You are welcome to the next kraken fight and I will show you the tactics. 

Honestly not following what you are talking about. No idea what a maze is. If you mean mace, I don't see how you can use that with a shield, as the mace is a two-handed weapon. I'm terrible with combat, as I only play PvE and generally fight everything on a tame. Since I fight from a tame, I get no hand to hand combat practice, which is about all you are going to do on a powerstone island. Bringing any tame is sure to get it killed.

My very first attempt to got into a powerstone cave was yesterday. I tried to sneak around all the creatures naked so I wouldn't lose any gear, since I was doing it solo, if I lost gear, I probably wouldn't be able to recover it. Never made it into the cave. If nothing killed me before the opening, right before the opening a high level lion would always jump me and kill me. Made about 10 runs at it, never even made it inside of the cave. It is a private server. Everyone is saying try the one in A4, which is supposed to have way less stuff outside of the cave than the one I was trying.

8 hours ago, The D Legacy said:

sorry but that is only avoiding the problem and pretending it doesnt exist.

kraken is not challenging at all, there are already strategies to complete it 100% of the times, you wont die as long as you know and follow those strategies

He asked for opinions. That was mine. I think it is just fine.

I know a lot of people like that Atlas is hard core and the devs have made a lot of it very hard core.

Personally I think that is a dumb strategy. If a boss is really hard, people just find a way to cheat the kill. I don't know what you guys are doing that makes it so easy other than just having as many players as possible. I've watched several videos, no video shows a way to not have any of the lightning. If you've found a way, your just cheating the mechanic of the boss fight. If you want a challenge, just fight the boss the way it was designed to be fought, instead of gaming it like so many do. It is all your choice.

Like the powerstone caves. I've yet to do those too. Seems kind of dumb also. People just run in there naked with 10 other players. Half of them die, but half make it. They just repeat the process until everyone has made it. Few actually try and kill all of the threats on the way in or in the cave, they are just way too hard core (high level) for that to be a valid strategy. So why do they make it so hard core if everyone is just going to game it? I guess if I played PvP I might understand.

Any game that has dungeons, etc., like Atlas can easily be defeated with a large number of players, assuming the game doesn't limit the number in some way.

Don't rely on the game to force you to play in a way that makes the game difficult. Challenge yourself. If you are playing with 20 people to defeat the kraken, try it with 10 instead. It is all up to you. This is a sandbox game after all. You can play easy mode or hard mode, Atlas is not going to tell you which mode is the most fun for you.

So far I've done none of the above that you mention, but I play solo. I do plan to team up with some people on the server I play on and do some of the above, probably the Kraken will be the first. I imagine about 10 to 15 of us will take it on. Some of us will die and not complete it. It don't think it will be "pretty easy" as you describe. The server does it as a weekend event and I watched one of the first in a video, looked pretty challenging.

1 hour ago, Lemming said:

i think id like an area to go to where maybe i can do Ship PVP and just risk the ship and crew but not my entire base/ fleet. maybe have some kind of wager between parties just to have a bit of fun and a reason to build warships. 

There are private servers that do just that. On some, they even spawn in the ships for you. You get a few minutes to customize is slightly to your liking and then you fight it out. At the end there is likely some reward for the winner of some sort. Others have rules about exactly which type of ship and how customized it can be, but you build it yourself. One player was telling me about a server that just roles back the whole serer after an hours long PvP battle. If you want it, someone has probably thought of it and is already doing it occasionally.

59 minutes ago, Fabulus said:

do you plan to open small tribes servers? because honestly the big tribes dominate and the small ones can do nothing on atlas . 

 

If you think that will fix anything, I can sell you a bridge, real cheap. They tried the small tribes with ARK. Fact is, players use a tool like Discord to organize and coordinate. Which tribe they belong to is just a small inconvenience. They don't rely on tribe chat, they have something like Discord for that, so 10 different small tribes can organize and dominate just about as easily as one large tribe.

8 minutes ago, Jack Shandy said:

You can't use private severs to argue that, as all the players know or want that system when they join, so only people happy with that set up play there. So there is no surprise it works for those playing there.

Ya, I think the thread is about PvPvE on official servers. Sorry, I think I'm the one that side tracked it to all the private servers that are already configured that way, and in my opinion, don't work as some would think. I was talking about private, since that is the only place this exists. But extend it to official, and there will be no rules, just the game mechanics, and then it will be even truer, it will be mostly PvP players. PvP players will definitely find ways to exploit the fact that there are PvE areas where they can not be attacked. I can imagine all kinds of hit and run on the PvP side next to the PvE section.

Maybe this is what PvP players will want, and if they do, give it to them I say. I just won't be participating, since I play PvE.

1 hour ago, Sydhart said:

All assumptions on your part and incorrect in the case of the 2 servers I played on. It's all based on the Admin and rule sets. The players all traded and helped each other and the PvP areas were there because the Admin were awesome and we built a community arena and had events like treasure hunts. You could participate or not and it really didn't impact the PvE side. People that built in the PvP areas could only be raided/attacked at certain times and only IF they were online. Violation of the rules were strictly enforced and players were banned for a week for 1st offense and permanently for 2nd offense. For the most part we had zero problems as most of the core group was mature players who understood rules, consequences, and accountability. Unfortunately, the servers only lasted a few months each due to the cost and the number of players who gave up on the game due to bugs and lack of progress in development.  

So it can be done, you just have active admin and mods and who must occasionally take out the "trash". 

That last sentence is what I'm talking about. The "trash" do show up, they seldom go quietly. So for me, this is a non-starter.  Sure you can make it work, but if you have PvP, you are always going to have drama.

Now PvE does have the rule breakers too, although they break rules that are kind of dumb. Like many servers don't allow you to destroy other players stuff when the timer is up. You can't go in some other players base even if they have no doors on their doorways. You can't claim tames that become claimable. I find all that kind of stuff fun, but if that is the rules, then I try my best to follow them.

36 minutes ago, Whitehawk said:

Actually we should have all been aware that the game was unfinished, it says so on steam and on the xbox store, also read the startup screen, It clearly states that it might never be finished either.

Ya, I hope we all know that. Now saying that, would you be happy if the game we have now is all we get and it is never finished?

I'll say that I'm happy with it so far, happy with how much I paid for it, but if it stays the same, I'll probably stop playing. I like to see games improve, not stagnate.

I might try New World, although I'm worried if we all go in there as excited as we were for Atlas when it first came out, we might be expecting a bit too much and be disappointed 

24 minutes ago, PeglegTheAngry said:

This, Wildbills absolute shit take that we have heard a million times.

Hey, I was just speculating. I actually don't know, don't really care how Wildcard and Grapeshot run their businesses, although I do agree, it would be nice to have more information on when we will see more of the roadmap implemented. Like a lot of people, give me too much time waiting, I lose patience and start speculating why it is taking what feels like soooo long. 

I actually took a 10 month break from these forums and from the game, so haven't actually heard it a million times, maybe a few times.

1 minute ago, wildbill said:

 

 

7 minutes ago, Percieval said:

I think it says it all when Jat was on the ARK forums 33 minutes ago and 3 days ago on the Atlas forums. 

Yes, it is interesting that a new company was formed to create Atlas, but you can't help but feel that was done for legal purposes. These guys have been sued once and are not about to make the same mistake again, which is to cover their butts legally by having a separate entity to protect the main company from lawsuits (the one that has the money that would attract a lawsuit). 

So just what is the Atlas team of developers doing right now? Probably not that much work on Atlas and more work on Genesis.

Digging is one way. Another is to press G and dance. Also over burdening and "running". Anything that uses stamina. You will see that when you stop the activity that uses stamina, the stamina will go up and then hunger will go down a bit.

Also overeating, not to the point of killing yourself, but damaging yourself is useful. Another thing the creates hunger is repairing health, so taking health loss from overeating allows you to eat more often. I generally eat whenever my food even slightly drops below 100%.

Also there is the old standby of just killing yourself, that re-balances your vitamins.

I have to agree though, this is a broken mechanic. The vitamins should not drop at a constant rate. They should drop at the same rate as your hunger does or they should just remove that game mechanic if they can't make it work in a reasonable way.

37 minutes ago, PeglegTheAngry said:

Running aground is a real danger in boating, a number one cause of small boating accidents is running into a rock or reef.

Actually, it is not, there are in for example Florida:

Operator inexperience, lack of proper look-out, operator inattention, excessive speed, machinery failure, navigational rules failure (collisions with other boats), careless/reckless behavior and hull failure, followed by hazardous waters, alcohol use, weather.

No mention of hitting a rock or reef in the search I did, but that probably is the result from some of the above.

23 minutes ago, PeglegTheAngry said:

Running aground is a real danger in boating, a number one cause of small boating accidents is running into a rock or reef.

In modern times, not really. All rocks tend to have a bouy to mark their location if they are not close to shore, but of course the Atlas game is not in modern times.

I think there are different types of rocks in Atlas, and we are not all talking about the same ones:

1) The rock close to shore in shallow water that you can see just under the surface.

2) The rock close to shore in not so shallow water that you may or may not be able to see.

3) The rare rock not close to shore, not in shallow water, not marked on the map.

So we can all probably agree, if you hit 1 or 2 at high speed (although a new player probably won't know this) it will try and sink your ship. But #3, is not expected and when it happens, may just cause some people to take a break from the game or never return. This is a part of the game I think we could do without.

The other problem I see with the current mechanic is the way the ship jumps around and bounces all over the place when it does hit an obstruction. This is so not like how a ship should behave that it confuses all but the most experienced Atlas players. They lose precious time figuring out what just happened. I think there is a message that says what happened, but are you reading all the messages on the screen when your ship is acting like a jumping bean?

2nd aspect of this is that not only does your ship sink, but there is no way to raise it again. In actual boating, a ship seldom sinks when hitting a rock, unless there is a severe storm involved. It generally gets a small hole and is able to ground itself or patch the hole and then repair it. In Atlas if you fail to be able to repair the ship in a short amount of time, that it, you lose your ship. No 2nd chance. You can salvage a part of the ship, but that is difficult and not always very practical.

20 minutes ago, Sydhart said:

We've been asking for this for a year now. Some private servers run a PVPVE mix that works well. For instance, I played on a custom 4X4 grid where the middle 4 zones were PvP zones and on a 5X5 where the middle row and middle column were PvP and the rest was PvE. It was pretty cool. No reason Grapeshot can't do something like. 

If you do run a PvPvE type of server, don't fool yourself into thinking this will be a place where both PvP and PvE players can play. It is a server for PvP players. Many PvP players also like a safe place where their base will not be raided and where they can gather resources. Once ready they can move to or travel to the PvP area which is usually set for higher danger and rewards. Most PvE players do not want to play on a PvPvE server. They play on a PvE server to avoid the drama, the competition, the destruction made by PvP players. A server that is half PvE and half PvP is a server that a PvE player can only play on one half of. And even in the PvE section, they will have to see the drama and toxic behavior in chat and other places from the PvP players.

I didn't watch the video, but read the Q&A article that I found. It sounds more like they removed the typical player vs base, high level player vs low level player type of PvP that many toxic PvP players seem to enjoy. Actual PvP between willing participants, they seem to have improved on the ability to have and the rewards you can get from it.

I hope they will be a success. It could give other companies a clue as to the proper way to implement PvP in a persistent game world.

I think all PvP includes PvE. So if you can declare war, then you are playing PvP.

I don't play PvP, but if I understand the current rules, you claim an island and set an allowed PvP time for each day. Other parts of the day are PvE only. You can use the Settlement War Declaration to over-rule the designated PvP times for the island. It is not cheap to do that though, says in the wiki, 500 x 3 crystal, 500 x 3 gem, 40,000 gold.