Incarnate

30 minutes ago, MaxPower said:

Absolutely. It is entirely possible and relatively easy to sink another players ship in PvE using the weight exploit. Why has this not been addressed? Its a simple fix (ships can't sink because of weight, at least while anchored, on PvE) and for those aware of the problem it has pretty much made PvE unplayable. I refuse to launch anything beyond a Sloop right now after someone sank out Schooner the other day with this exploit. Alpha/EA or not, its unacceptable that such an issue has remained unsolved for this long.  

 

I completely agree, this is an issue that needs to be dealt with as soon as possible, especially because on PvE you can do absolutely nothing to stop it. However what I would recommend that you do is, collect evidence (screenshots or video) if you see it happening, then report it to support and they can deal with those appropriately who've been exploiting it. But this shouldn't even be possible to do in the first place, as one would be unable to even get on board a ship with that amount of weight required to sink a ship, not even to mention that it should be impossible to move with that kind of weight.

@Hector of Troy perhaps this thread here could be a step in the right direction as it specifically deals with making and holding land claims be a more costly endeavor, where it would make those that either wants to hold or is holding land claim(s) having to focus on activities that yields gold to be able claim and continuously keep the land:

This idea can be further explored and be made even better and viable for the game.

I think your idea of making NPCs able to patrol and guard is great, and not just for guarding/patrolling of claim flags, but also because if the npc's can be set to guard/patrol, they could also be made to have other types of specific behaviour, and quite possibly be set to also detect various things. So say if crime system was implemented, they could be set to give a notification whenever they observe someone violating the laws.

I think it's a great idea to be able to make a port where various npc ships could dock, to for instance trade with the players. Likewise, a system is needed for player driven trade, whether that is trading commodities and other resources, or that is trading services in exchange for resources/goods or other services, but effectively having something that lets players have a system that will make a trade transaction possible, including being able to list items and services along with their price point.

 

@Jatheish What I would like to see in a soon upcoming patch:

To see land claims cost initial gold to place, cost gold to keep it, referred to as upkeep, where the initial cost and upkeep would be based on various factors such as how many land claims are currently owned and are they connected to the main land claims or not, how rich the land is in terms of resources and rare commodities, and so on. Claim flags would also have to be crafted as and be used as finite resource. More about it can be found here: Trade is an absolute necessity in a player driven game... Why would this be a good thing? Well for starters it would make it so players/companies can only keep what they can afford to keep, and it will automatically make players have chose between what activity to do that yields gold, like treasure hunting, focus on building and improving infrastructure to be able to gain more gold this way, trade and other potential activities could be explored. This is something that automatically puts players into the position of having to acquire gold if they want to keep their claims, which also will make players/companies decide on if the next expansion/land claim is something they can afford.

To see the skill trees and disciplines being made much more diversified, where the skill tree would emphasize more and distinguish between crafters and specialized users as per this thread the post: Armor, weapons & firearms use in the skill trees. Especially so that the game is being taken more towards reliance on others than on self-reliance and players be made less self-sufficient, as it disincentivizes trade. Because currently what we're seeing is that players are being made very self-sufficient and self-reliant, which achieves the complete opposite in regards to trade. Self-sufficiency and self-reliance is good in single player games, but in a sandbox MMO game that Atlas attempts to be, it is not.

Something I certainly would like to see fixed ASAP are mesh issues - Which in short are issues where one can be attacked through the mesh of an object or game environment, like for instance through the from beneath a cliff, the side of a ship, but also that players and animals can clip through the mesh, which without a doubt cannot be intended. Like players being able to clip through the hull of a ship, can both be used offensively but can also make players become stuck, where this often happens when attempting to climb a robe ladder on a ship.

Another thing that certainly needs to be fixed is OVERPOWERED wildlife, especially wildlife that defaults to aggressive behaviour. Aggressive animal count needs to be reduced ASAP, and the same with their respawn rate - animals respawn way too fast. Alphas needs to be moved to powernode islands or removed until game balance has reached a state where it can support it appropriately. Furthermore, I think wildlife that defaults to aggressive behaviour should only be in aggressive behaviour because their hunger is high or they've been attacked, it would at least for the time being be a good temporary fix until you narrow down how to more appropriately balance wildlife in regards to player game balance. Crocodile's are the bane of smaller ships, as it can outright kill anyone on it in a few attacks and make it insanely difficult to get rid of the menacing croc, as it will keep killing anyone that spawns in. If you can't figure out a way to deal with this issue, it's better that you disable them for now, until you can appropriately fix the issues with the crocs, same applies with aggressive wildlife.

18 minutes ago, boomervoncannon said:

Try having a game full of pirates with nothing to plunder and tell me how that works out for ya.   You need trade to plunder my larcenous friend.

Yes, that would be correct, because that is what Pirates usually plunder - Trade ships and Trade caravans (if on land)
To add on top of that, I think Pirates would trade whatever they don't need for more supplies like ammunition and cannonballs, but if they need nothing else then more gold, Rum or Grog will do just fine - whichever suits your taste more

33 minutes ago, Aztek said:

Sailing is fun, but could increase the speed a little.  It does take a lot of time to go from place to place.   

 

OP has great ideas.  I'm a big fan of upkeep.  The upkeep itself should be auto though.  Some type of storage that the upkeep will auto-draw out of.  

Yes, absolutely, upkeep should automatic, I'm sure it could made so it deducts it from either a specified container or the bank, which ever would be present and preferable, it might even be made so you can pay for upkeep in advance for the current land claims, where if one were to add claims, then it would deduct what is due when its time for the upkeep.

Yes, I have great ideas, so vote for dev president Incarnate

1 hour ago, Anarki said:

Atlas and ARK are very similar in that you will die a lot. Yes, we can die to level off our vitamin bars when they are low, or die just because we want to spawn somewhere else but in general there are many reasons we die which arent our fault i.e. game crashes and find yourself falling from a great height etc.

To have a permanent consequence to dying isnt right, especially in PvP because if you die and have half your HP and return to defend your base the attackers will have all the advantage and you will no longer have a base.

You could always include a cooldown consquence (respawn sickness) like slow movement speed for 5mins, or 3/4's HP for 5 mins, +50 extra food degeneration etc. Something which is a nuisance but wont ruin a players stats for the rest of the game.

But who's talking about permanent consequences, I'm not, what I'm talking about is temporary debuffs that last for a longer time, like an ingame day at maximum, per death, up to a certain max like 3 or 5 deaths, so it would take tops 5 in game days to recover from it. And what I am suggesting also offers the other side the coin, where one can get a more lasting temporary buff for staying alive for a prolonged time, which would last until one dies.

Also, the numbers I've suggested wouldn't make one have 50% health, it would at maximum reduce the maximum amount of hitpoints by 25%, where the increment per death could be made something like 5%, 2.5% or even as low as 0.5%.

So from a PvP perspective, this goes both ways, as those who're attacking would also be reduced in effectiveness as they sustain casualties, which at some point they would have to consider when to pull from their invasion/assault.

Making mild nuisances would just be something players will power through and won't mean a thing, and what I'm suggesting won't ruin their stats for the rest of the game. I don't know where you're getting this from, but certainly not something I'm suggesting and I'm not in favor of permanent detrimental effects to player characters

29 minutes ago, Zlax said:

There are several things that needs to be implemented on top of just adding a gold cost to flags, else the megas will just claim all the rich lands and raid the rest.

Things needs to be considdering like, how far apart your claim flags are, and maybe even an increase in cost pr flag based on the amount of flags you have.

ie. if you have 10 flags each flag might cost 1gp, if you have 100 each flag might cost 10gp .. so that it scales massively the bigger you get. also to prevent people from simply claming land all over to go around the actual supplyers you would maybe designate a flag as your capital flag (with maybe a bigger cost and larger claim timer/declaim timer and upkeep cost) and then other flags gets an additional cost based on distance to this capital?

 

Not sure, cuz most megas would have the infastructure to simply split up into many smaller companies and ally between them, so not sure how to actually implement this to make life hard enough for megas while still bearable for everyone else.

Hell even make freeports ACTUAL freeports, ie. have places where you can rent a stall and sell your shit like an auction house ect? Make it so that its not just a random newb zone, but an actual safe place to conduct trading, and then have the lawless zones you have to escape through to get back home with your stuff, or get to sell your stuff.

Oh I agree, as I also stated above, this takes more than just this to make it work, but it's one the main things that needs to be changed for the game to take this direction.

I think it's equally important that the cost of the claim and the upkeep cost also should be based on the size of the claim, how rich the the land is terms of resources, it's climate and so forth. So basically a base cost and various variables and multipliers that affect the final cost, both initial cost but also the upkeep cost. I don't think it should be cumulative in terms of how many flags, but it definitely should be in terms the amount land claimed.

Another aspect I think that should be touched upon, is what you mention about a capital flag which would be a very good thing to implement, as that would also make it possible to distinguish between land claims connected to the main land claim and claims unconnected land claims. This would also make it possible to set different costs that would make it less favorable to have land claims that aren't connected with the main land claim. The cost of land claim that aren't connected with the main land claim should cost considerably more, thus making them less favorable. However I would say this, a land claim should only encompass the land and thus one should only pay for the part of the land that has been claimed. Where any land claim flag can be changed into being the main capital flag, when enough main land claims have been made to support it - this number should obviously be found what seems to work best.

So to make an example of a formula that could be used would be something down the lines of this:
Number of flags x (the type of the claim x the actual land mass x the quality of the land claimed) = Initial cost (a lower amount) // the upkeep (a higher number).

Obviously the above can probably be made even better, but it's just something to work from.

In regards to the freeports where you can rent a stall, I think that it is good idea, and it definitely is a step towards actually incentizing and encouraging trade. I also think they should make building much like the bank, at least for now, where people could list their offers and prices.

1 minute ago, Sulfurblade said:

I hope you can get thru to them because a True Sandbox MMORPG is a very rare thing and any and all that release I pray they do well, but its even more bitter when they don't...  The Game industry has no idea how starved the MMORPG genre is for a GOOD Sandbox....  We haven't seen one since Ultima Online and SWG...

I completely agree, I do my best to try and get through, but it will be easier to get through if my suggestions get more attention and support.
Because if they can see that a lot of people are actually in support of what I suggest, then there is a higher probability that they will listen, as they did when they learned that my fix actually worked and actually got people who've been struggling for hours upon hours consistently into the game, then they knew there was something about the fix. They basically implemented my fix into the -lowmemorymode startup parameter, where in my opinion it should've been a seperate one. But either way, it has helped so many to be able actually play the game, including myself, both on this forum, Steam community, discord and users on other platforms. So I do hope they realize how important that is, because alot these folks could easily get a refund, even if they had 10+ hours in the game, simply due to the fact that they have to deliver a playable game upon purchase.

Atlas the potential to be so good, which it will only be if the devs makes it so, where the path of self-sufficiency and self-reliance won't make for a good MMO gameplay experience, it can for a single player game, but this isn't a single player game, and the devs really need to realize this. Where good player driven trade is a pillar of a good MMO gameplay experience.

Just now, Sulfurblade said:

I agree all around....  But these developers are blind, deaf, and dumb....  They don't listen to you and I....  They listen to the kiddy's that play ark and most of those kiddy's would prefer griefing and locking someone in a cage for days against there will...  To making a game with any tangible meat and potatoes to it...

Well, you may be right, however they might actually listen to me as I've already once helped them with an issue that has helped a lot of their players actually becoming able to play the game as I figured out why people weren't able to successfully load into the game servers, hopefully that was enough to make them listen more to what I have to say, I can only hope.

As it currently is, they're definitely taking the game in a direction that isn't healthy for the gameplay experience, especially not when considering they want it to be an MMO game, which hopefully they realize soon that they need to change a lot of things to make this happen.

27 minutes ago, Sulfurblade said:

I don't agree 100 percent that it would make trade better but I think it would be a great mechanic none the less....

Putting an upkeep on flags makes sense in everyway it makes a player now have to consider is dropping anothe flag really worth it???

So from that perspective I love the idea and it certainly would get more people sailing around looking for booty!

But the process of sailing around looking for booty IS NOT TRADE...

Trade is trade the exchanging of one resource for another!!!  Or the purchase of a resource, don't get me wrong I love your idea and I think its a fine first step that will encourage people to get out on the ocean and even pvp to happen in ships out at sea....  but your idea really doesn't even begin to fix the issue of Trade...

 

It does however make gold more valuable and thus it will be far more usefull as a currency!

I'm not saying it will make trade better, but I'm saying it's one of the foundations that needs to be laid, as in doing so it will incentivize, encourage and support trade to a degree. Why do I think this? It's because it will make people focus on activities that will yield gold, where focusing on building and improving infrastructure certainly is one way to get gold, where Trade is quite possible one of the key things that will make that happen that helps both parties, unless the player/company is big enough to be able sustain both grinding for materials and various building projects. Trade would greatly speed up this process, and would be beneficial for both parties as it would free up manpower in the company to do other important tasks.

I know sailing around for loot isn't trade, and I'm not saying it is because I know it isn't, but it's one the activities that will yield gold, and gold is necessary to keep land claims.

Trade isn't just exchanging one resource for another, trade could just as well be a service rendered for a resource, commodity or other service rendered. Hence why I am saying, if they were to be diversifying the skill tree more, where they distinguishing between crafters and users who specialize in an items use - which I did in this suggestion: Armor, weapons & firearms use in the skill trees.

If they made the sort of changes I suggested there and here, it would make it possible for people to be more specialized, at the cost of relying on others for things you need, which also again incentivizes trade, whether for items or for services rendered, but the main point is, that it's another thing that would make trade more incentivized and encourages it. Because you may not be a shipbuilder and or a captain, but you may be in need of someone with a ship and the crew and experience to sail it, because you have a place you want to go trade - again trading services rendered for something. Unfortunately, the route they're going currently is that everyone should be self-sufficient and self-reliant which does the complete opposite of making trade an important aspect of the game.

Just now, Sulfurblade said:

We shouldn't be derailing this thread as its very on point the game needs an economy desperately !!!

I agree it does, and I think making land claims cost gold, both initially and in upkeep would to a great degree create a gameplay environment that incentivizes, encourages and supports trade, and I think it's the primary thing they need to change to make this happen, but obviously they need to implement more and change several things to make player driven trade and economy become something in the game.

2 minutes ago, Realist said:

Hopefully they have learned. I haven’t seen it yet but who knows. People can change but they rarely do

Well I do hope they have learned from their massively failed EA launch, because as far as I know, it's been one of the absolute worst game launches in history on this scale. It doesn't make it better that the game they were launching is an EA title, and that they had over 7k negative reviews on day one. But you know as they say, listen, learn and adapt. Hopefully they will listen to their community in regards to what I'm suggesting, where those suggestions I'm bringing here, have already been discussed in great detail with other gameplay/balance enthusiasts, who all saw the complete suggestion - which would be to big to fit here, at least for the majority to follow.

The complete suggestion encompasses a wide variety of things to improve the game as a whole and deals with a lot of the issues that we've seen with the game, where what I'm suggesting in terms of claiming land should cost initial gold and cost gold to keep, as well as materials to craft flags, is the primary suggestion I think that would tie a lot of things together, because it will as a result be creating a gameplay environment that incentivizes, encourages and supports to a good degree. Obviously other things needs to be changed in order to really make what I suggest truly shine. But playerdriven trade is definitely something think they should focus on getting to work, as it's a key ingredient in an MMO that is player driven - which Atlas happens to be.

7 minutes ago, Realist said:

I just want to put it out there that boiling ocean water doesn’t make it potable. Here in California we set up a multi billion dollar desalination plant so we could start using ocean water for drinking water or crop feeding.

This is something that can be done without expensive equipment, but of course if you want to it on a mass scale and with higher levels quality, various sorts of laboratory testing, analasis and other kinds of things involved, then yes, then you do need expensive equipment and lab-equipment. But salt water can be cooked and used IF you use a simple technique of desalination, it's just a process that takes some time, but can repeated as needed, and it can be done without expensive equipment or even advanced equipment. I would say one would need physics or chemistry knowledge in order to be able to do something as this. Because even though it's simple technique, it is something that requires scienticific insight, where chemistry would preferable.

19 minutes ago, Realist said:

You are basing this on the notion that they will wipe after release. A lot of people were hoping that would happen during the release of ark. Jeremy himself the head of wildcard was the one that wanted to do the wipe. That is why my name is officialwipe on Twitter and still is.

too many people were against the wipe and it wasn’t just all of the Megas but a lot of people in small to beta tribes were against it as well. The real tipping point was when all of the other devs went to Jeremy and pleaded for him not to do an official wipe.

once Jeremy gave the statement he said it was ultimately the other devs that were able to change his mind. I am telling you this because I am the one person that I guarantee takes the official wipe even more serious than you do.

i will hope for one on here just like I did with ark. But on a realistic stand point I don’t believe they will do it. They are way too afraid of the backlash it would cause. Sure I can’t give you a definite certainty. But I can say that history does repeat itself and I am already seeing it happening before my eyes. 

They've actually stated that they will be wiping the servers upon release, and if they don't do that they've made false advertisement, as that was part of how they advertised it on steam, and possibly other places. If they didn't advertise this with Ark, then it will be difficult to compare the two situations, as one of them can have legal consequences if they don't follow through.

Also, because there is a very big difference in the setup of Ark and Atlas, where one is geared towards many official servers, and the other geared towards one cohesive server stitched together by many servers. Also, with Atlas being advertised as an MMO, there will be pretty bad issues if they don't do a server-wipe upon release, as everyone who did not participate in the early access will find it almost impossible to find a place to be in the game.

I don't know how Steam feels about companies that does false advertisement on their platform, but as far as I know, they would most likely be banned from the platform. Why? Because they have advertised that the servers will be wiped upon release, and Steam a big enough to follow through with a class action lawsuit if they deem it necessary, especially if there are other things they've been conducting misleading marketing. And retroactively speaking, IF it's found that they have been conducting misleading marketing / false advertisement - people can retroactively get a refund, which could become a financial hit on them if enough people decided to go with a refund. And as far as I know, Steam keeps records of product page information, so if they have it on file, then they have all the proof need.

In regards to history repeating itself, I can only say unfortunately you're right, but hopefully they have learned to stand by what they say and especially what they advertise.

5 minutes ago, Vorxius said:

The vitamins thing is a bit of gamey mc game thing.  If I had made this I would have used a slightly different system.

Instead of vitamins, I'd have used :   Hydration, Protein, Nutrition.   Keep it simpler.

Hydration, self explaining.   I'd even go as far as adding a sort of pot recipe that allows sea water to be boiled off.

Protein, from eating meats & fish.. better meats give better boosts.

Nutrition , from eating your greens and berries / fruit / veg etc.

Could tie in protein to things like stamina boosts and health regen for being well fed, to resistances to torpor for being a good little person and eating your veggies and berries.  Simplify what we have now, and make food last longer for sure.  Make it less of a chore, but something that sits in the background needing quiet attention.

I don't want to suggest a nerf or drastically change things, but, once the food system works, and wildlife isn't so devastatingly malevolent and glitchy, then I'd be ok to have some kind of temporary debuff for dying.  You do not want to smack the game down for PvE to balance PvP, so a debuff would work for both.  Debuff could be in the way of a temporary stat reduction etc.   Just so that staying alive during PvP encounters is a priority.  in PvE it'll be an annoying inconvenience.

Sorry waffled on more than intended...

I like your idea with the Protein, Hydration and Nutrion, and is better than what the current system offers.
Also, I agree, it should be possible to actually boil salt water to use.

What I'm suggesting when one die is actually a debuff with several severity levels - it temporarily reduces your maximum hitpoints, stamina regen and possibly others that deals with the physical health. It's temporary as long as one stays alive for it to wear off, where as I suggested 1 day per 1 death as a base, where various things could speed up this process like, eating healthy - keeping food, water and vitamins in high levels, applying remedies and if magic would ever make it to the game, then possibly something there could speed up this process. The number I gave is just for example the actual value would have to be tweaked to find the appropriate amount.

I think it should work for both PvE and PvP, where obviously it would impact PvP a lot more, but nonetheless I find that to be reasonable. For PvP it would fix a lot of issues that people deal with, however I don't think that the game is currently ready for what I'm suggesting as there are lot of things that needs to be fixed, both bugs, glitched, exploits, OP wildlife, but certainly is something that should be there.

In regards to it being an annoying inconvenience in PvE, by including it hunger, thirst and vitamin deficiencies, they've clearly indicated they want this to be part of the intended gameplay, but not yet realized that it becomes more of an inconvenience by letting it be something you can easily avoid simply by dying and respawning without any detrimental effects of dying. Where it would more immersive and gratifying if dying had more lasting detrimental effects (like a temporary debuff that last for like a 1 day, and more if more severe), as one were able to stay alive and avoid those detrimental effects.

19 minutes ago, Elrood said:

I think the main difference between us is for me game should give benefits for staying alive and give players incentive to play that way, while you want to force every player to play that way by penalizing them. Inclusive design where players can opt out but will not receive additional handouts but will lose nothing more than earlier vs forcing all from start (willing or not) to play one defined way or they will and penalize those who don't want. 

I don't see any kind of consensus between those two points of view. One or the other need to be picked. 

And of course i hope inclusive would be chosen   But that is only my opinion. 

What I'm suggesting offers both sides of the coin, as one will be rewarded for staying alive while healthy for prolonged amount of time, as one would get more maximum hitpoints, better stamina regen, and other benefits that deals with physical health. But will also be penalized for dying, and there should be consequences of dying, and not just it be that one loses that benefits given, it has to be something that will make the player play more cautiously. Where it's not a matter of playing correctly or incorrectly, but a matter of playing the intended gameplay, so it's not about playing one certain way, but accepting that this is part of the game and the intended gameplay.

This is how what you're saying it should be, how it would be in real life - "I don't want to deal with hunger, thirst, vitamins, so I'll just ignore that part, oh and don't want to deal with people, money, politics, religion or anything else, so I'm just going to ignore that too - I'm just not willing to play the intended gameplay of life, but I want to play how I want to."

This is how I see it, the devs have intended gameplay, detrimental, beneficial and all in between, and if people are doing things to avoid the detrimental effects of the intended gameplay, then they need to do something to make people follow the intended gameplay, and it being possible to play around in the first place is simply because they haven't thought it all the way through. It shouldn't even be an option to choose whether you want first option or second option, it should be as the devs defines it, and if they've made it possible to play around it or somehow avoid it, exploit it, abuse it, etc., then they need to fix it. It would be similar to law, if there were a hole in the judicial system, then it would need to be fixed asap so it can't be exploited again. Same deal here, but the game isn't ready to have consequences of dying added currently because the game has so many issues it needs to have fixed appropriately, where once that is done, there definitely should be consequences of dying whether it's those I've suggested or something else but similar, is definitely something that should be there.

You see what I'm suggesting offers both penalties and rewards.

Just now, Wndash said:

Thank you so much for helps even ı cant play game because of my sistem not good enough.But you help me and others better than devolopers moderators or other who works for game.I was play ark for a long time because of that ı thought ı cant play this either.I have 8 hour main menu gameplay :/.Thanks a lot again

That sucks, no worries, I try my best to help as many as I can. Yeah, the devs should do more and to try and help their players in making it work.
As you can't currently play the game, that doesn't mean you might not be eventually as they may later optimize it more, so you can play it. Or it could be that they implement a lesser demanding build of the game, which I don't think will happen anytime soon, but I am hopeful they will implement it so people with lower end systems can at least still play and enjoy the game.

There are two things you can do now, which depends on your situation.

If the system is a laptop, there problem isn't much you can do to make the game run, where I'd suggest you try to get a refund, and if they decline, just keep at it as you have not been able to actually play the game.

If the system is a desktop, and you can afford it, you can choose to upgrade the graphics card to a newer graphics card that is either equal to or above what is required. However if you cannot afford it but still are considering to upgrade at a later point, you could choose to keep the game, but otherwise request a refund and purchase it when you have a better system.

28 minutes ago, Elrood said:

About that "1 day to recover". Take a look at how salty Boundless forums got because of death penalty and apply lesson form WoW - two good example how not to handle it and how to fix it after messing up. Instead of penalty add "Survival" buff which the longer you live the more it gives you with some cap on it. Instead of vitamins balance buff for example. People will always be salty about penalties (psychology 101) but will welcome awards. This is a game, should be enjoyable and hard work of keeping you alive long enough should be awarded. Not short mistake to kill you should be penalized. Much better approach actually after some thoughts in this direction. 

But this doesn't solve the issue with people that are exploiting it, do you think that these people who're exploiting it gives a rat ass about if they lose a buff or not? I don't think they care one bit about losing a buff, but they would care about losing something that puts them below general performance level. Another thing here, you're comparing two different games to each other that are vastly different from one another, it's like comparing apples to oranges, then saying because apples taste good then so will oranges, which comes down to individual taste. Another problem is that death is being exploited other things, because it's a convenient way to deal with certain issues. So the only way you can takle those efficiently and more correctly, is to apply both sides of the coin. Also, the concept of time isn't something WoW has, not in the same sense of game mechanics that affect gameplay over the course of hours, days, weeks, etc., Atlas does. WoW isn't a survival game nor is it a sandbox, so what works for WoW, wouldn't necessary work for Atlas, they're two very distinctly different games, even though both are MMOs, well one attempts to being but currently isn't.

What you're suggesting simply does not alleviate the problem that death isn't something people take serious in the game, and uses it frequently to dodge detrimental game effects, intended gameplay mechanics, which are there for a reason.

11 minutes ago, Maffia said:

How about removing the crap vitamin system?

Problem solved.

That doesn't solve the problem, people still kill them selves to get around hunger, thirst and other sorts of things where it's convenient.

8 minutes ago, Tina Toothpick said:

The way to make death matter is simple :

1.Make loot cost more to make.

2.Extend the respawn timer

3.Respawn them far from where they died.

All of this equates to time, which is the only real way to punish a player. Force them to waste time. Time in creating what they need to make, time in the respawn, time in the distance back to their body. 

Beyond that, i would say reduce exp, or place a debuff on the player for death.

Anything too permanent will kill the game. Someone in another thread suggested that dying should increase the rate that you age, a mechanic i think shouldn't even be in the game. This is a BAD way to make death matter. It will simply cause people to leave the game, and is what i'd call "halfway hardcore". 

I'm also a little skeptical of punishing nakeds.. Seems a little too much. Someone could gimp themselves from the start when they'd just trying to learn the game. And having to deal with vitamins all the time will just make the game a chore.

 

What I'm suggesting is hardly permanent, as I suggested, 1 day to recover from one death worth of "penalty", obviously the more penalized you are, the longer time it would take to recover, but I did put a cap on that, which was something like 5 days, we're talking five in game days. So it's fairly easy to recover from it, but it does have consequences, so one shouldn't be going to war in that state as one would be severely weakened. Furthermore, I'm also suggested that characters that are healthy should for every day stay alive up to a certain maximum should get some benefits, like increased maximum hitpoints, better stamina regen, and so forth. But there does need to be consequences of dying as currently it's way too easy to avoid all the detrimental aspects of the hunger, thirst and vitamin deficiency, making that system a joke.

Making it so it costs more to craft things, I don't think would do much, that would just make people grind more or wait more until that debuff wears off. Extending the respawn timer, should already be a thing in my opinion, which it to some degree already is as the spawn points has a certain limit before a timers is put on. Respawn them where they, died, wouldn't accomplish much and could potentially just aggrevate certain situations, and potentially be exploited by griefers. Reducing exp won't do anything for those who're already max level.

I agree, the idea of increasing the rate of which you age with every death, is a very bad idea, to the point of being horrible. Age could be an interesting concept in the game, but it all depends on how well they execute that idea and concept, where for instance the idea of playerdriven mating is a really bad gameplay idea, in many ways actually.

In regards to punishing "nakeds", I never said anything in regards specifically to punishing "nakeds", but the reason we see a lot of nakeds running around is simply due to what is the most efficient in the game, which says a lot when nakeds and fire arrows/torches has become the thing that is the most efficient. I think what I'm suggesting here might affect this issue, and as well as making land claim cost gold to claim and keep. Personally I think people have to see the greater picture, rather than just looking at a few things when determining if something will work or not, where it will often be a combination of things that fixes the issues, where this one could just be a piece of a larger puzzle.

45 minutes ago, Wndash said:

My video card is ''AMD Radeon HD 7570 Series and ı have 2000 dedicated video ram

If you look on the product page on Steam, in clearly states AMD Radeon HD 7870 2GB or better.
Yours is an AMD Radeon HD 7520, and you state it has 2000 dedicated video ram, however I'm very inclined to believe thats the total amount of both dedicated and shared video memory combined and NOT the dedicated memory alone, I could be wrong, however this is usually the case.

If you could do this, then you can at least verify this bit of information, both for yourself and for me.
What I would like you to do, is press the windows button + r, then type dxdiag, then click the fan thats says render.
This page should contain accurate information about how much Display Vram, shared memory and approximate total memory, however the Vram is the dedicated amount of video memory your graphics card has available, which is the most important one as it's the one that will show you enough or below the required amount. Be sure to pay attention to the chip type name in the render tab, so you're sure that you're getting information the graphics card in question. It's very likely that your dedicated graphics video memory is below 2gbs (2048 MBs) - the Vram. If so then it's because you have insufficient dedicated video memory. On the flipside, if you have enough Vram, then it's because your graphics adapter doesn't support a technology used by the game, as it's inferior to what is the minimum required graphics adapter. In either case, as much as I would like to help, I think it would be difficult to get it to work under the current conditions, where the only current way around it would be to upgrade the graphics adapter if you can.

28 minutes ago, Grongash said:

I can see you havent read all of mine. Its not just imbalance, its mostly bugs atm.

I actually did and tried to respond to all of it, even if most or some of it is bugs, it's also things that they need to fix before implementing what I'm suggesting.
There are great deal of things they need to narrow down and fix appropriately, glitches, bugs, imbalances, etc. before implementing what I've suggested here. Which isn't just death having detrimental consequences but also beneficial consequences of avoiding death for a prolonged amount of time.

21 minutes ago, Nightstrasza said:

Nah, with all predators, alphas, glitches and broken patches would prefer it never changes, even after all is fixed would prefer there will be profits for living long and not making us more useless for dying.

Well, as well as dandy as that would be, lasting detrimental effects from dying is needed, especially since dying really doesn't have any lasting detrimental effects, people just die and respawn, they even exploit it because it's so damn convenient. So it may be you do not want it, that doesn't change the fact that it's actually needed to some degree. Also note, I'm also suggesting that players are rewarded with beneficial consequences for staying alive for a prolonged amount of time.. Both sides of the coin are represented. And I've been trying to point out, what I've suggested here, shouldn't be implemented UNTIL they fix all of the current balance issues, bugs, glitches, balance issues, and especially the OP wildlife.

Just now, Wndash said:

i have 8 gb ram but same mistake loading wait about 3-4 mn after automaticly closing

What dedicated graphics do you have and how much DEDICATED Graphics memory does your graphics adapter have? If you don't have the minimum 2048mbs of Gddr5 ram, the game will crash like that. From what I've gathered from other people who were facing this issue, it was an issue of not having enough dedicated graphics memory.

23 minutes ago, Grongash said:

In a game where you die left and right due to crappy mechanics, completely overtuned wildlife, bugs (stuck in bed, stuck in walls, falling off the ship mid travel due to clipping errors, spontanous ship explosions, etc), tons of hacks and grievers death should NOT have any consequences.

 

I can see you haven't read all of the initial post, specifically because I've said in it that they need to fix various issues, including OP wildlife before implementing my suggestion. They should not implement my suggestion UNTIL they have fixes most of the current imbalanced issues with the game.

1 minute ago, Watru said:

We dont need more of that stuff when you charater gets old and dies.
And if you dont have a hire then you are screwed and wont want to die.

What I'm suggesting has nothing to do with dying from old age, and if a character would die from old age, that would be the equivelent of a permanent death.
Currently I don't think the game is in a place where they should even remotely consider implementing the effects of old age nor how to continue ones character if that character were to die of old age. I don't think the game is ready for that, but I do think that the devs should be fully transparent with what they have in mind and discuss it with the community/playerbase, so that they can guage before implementing if that is the correct step to take, especially so they can learn potential issues with that part of their design path.

1 minute ago, LaiTash said:

who cares about armor or firearms anyway, i can just pew-pew napalm arrows naked 

Well, you see, they will if if suddenly you had to be trained it's use. Furthermore, they have nerfed fire ammo a great deal, but should be made so fire is only as efficient as the target it is hit by fire.

Fire in general should be as efficient as what it's used on. Where for instance fire arrows should be less efficient on human targets as they have less that will ignite as soon as it pierces the body, where it would be highly efficient against thatch, wood, fur, but very inefficient against stone.

It would be interesting if they introduced a bleed mechanic.

But the main thing this the initial post is about is the fact that the currently the skill trees emphasize training to use higher quality of items rather than using things untrained would incur penalties, and like wise that the it focuses on being able to craft it in order to specialize in it, which I think is bad, hence why I suggested the above.

8 minutes ago, Watru said:

@IncarnateI think it is safe to say that nobody is a fan of this.
If we read the reply`s anyways and the outrage and backlash if they implemented a penalty for dieing.
Well am just going to grab my popcorn and watch the show.

Lets not make the game less fun and more frustrating.

My guess you want to steam roll small groups with your big company and making sure they have no recourse at all.
Penalty for death in a game is ALWAYS a BAD idea unless its direcly tied to the PvP and the reason behind it.

Not a blanket penalty factory just to make it hard and frustrating.

Thats kind of amusing you think that just because of a few dislikes it, then suddenly everyone isn't a fan of it, where there are also people in this thread who're actually in support of it, just not now as the game currently is, which I actually agree with and I also did talk about in the initial post, that this isn't something they should implement until they have things like for instance OP wildlife appropriately balanced.

It's kind of funny you think that I'm part of big company and that I want to steamroll small groups, especially since I detest griefers and griefing.
I just happen think that it's complete BS that people can just kill themselves to avoid the detrimental effects of starvation, dehydration, vitamin deficiencies and that through making death actually have more lasting detrimental effects and on the other side of the coin have beneficial effects of avoiding death, being something that would be good for the game. Furthermore, what I'm suggesting would also greatly affect the PvP aspect, as suddenly companies couldn't just keep an invasion ongoing when they've sustained major casualties, and if they have been zerging, they would become a lot more easy to deal with. Oh, and in case you don't know, guess how much bigger companies have been exploiting zerging around to claim land, because death matters absolutely zero in this game currently. Where if it actually had detrimental consequences of dying, and beneficial consequences of staying alive, that would completely change warfare tactics on PvP servers. There is great reasoning behind what I'm suggesting.

I don't think this would make the game less fun and more frustrating, but it would if implemented as is right now, which isn't what I'm suggesting! I'm suggesting this to be introduced when they've gotten various gameplay and balance issue narrowed down and fixed appropriately.