mgsgta3

I just made a post caled "i have a dream". that explains in good detail what i would make possible.

When Atlas released I had a dream, and it did not come to be. With these new updates though my dream has survived. I have a dream, that I can claim a small cluster of relatively flat islands and knock down most of the trees and brush, disintegrate every boulder from my way until i have flat lands upon which I(and my crew) will build a large network of 3 story apartment buildings, with roads, amenities, clean running water, a town center with a dining hall, a courthouse and jail, perhaps a pub or two, and even a few shops. Then In my dream, we build some moderately formidable defenses, enough to make the fresh beach bobs think "Wow, I feel safe here". Then, I will open my real estate business to the world, taking in any person wishing to have a place to call home, where they can have their own locked doors and containers, their own crafting stations within their homes, etc. This could be for the true noobs or the people just needing a home base so they can get out on the high seas without the hassle of finding and fighting for a place to call home.... All for a small but fair amount of gold for rent.. I have a dream, that my small nation-state would inspire others to harness the real estate mogul within them and create their own little nation-state, with their own little citizens/peasants, so as to create a healthy competition for who has the best quality of life for the best price. I have a dream, that one day I would no longer be needed for my nation-state had grown beyond what it was, and would begin its new life as a democratic republic by holding its first election, after which I would hand the reigns over and(hopefully) be able to watch it prosper and become a reflection of the voice of its citizens(whatever that may be), the choice of its citizens.. I have a dream of truly colonizing atlas. Is this plausible yet or where are we at with all these updates?(ive been out of the loop. lol)

This makes it so pvp servers cant have "no collision" enabled because anyone can build cannons right there by you.

Honestly I loved that aspect of atlas immediately, I thought itwas gona be liek that from day one. I was all about wanting to build a nation with a bunch of loyal peasants that are happy to live in the little homes I make and keep safe for them so they can go out and do whatever it is they do. But the way its setup thats not happening. They need to make it so your power is derived from NON-company people(citizens) living on your land, not how big your company is.

delay? they should just toss it, I havent seen one person say they are playing it

Haha this guys got his head on right.

Lol now you guys get to know how Paul Revere felt when you guys invaded us back in the day XD

Okay I will rephrase. What value does upgraded ship parts bring to the game? The more important part everyone skipped over as well is the suggestion of more unique ship parts

"We dont want Ark 2" The hell we dont, I would take Ark 2 and i would love the hell out of it. In due time though(Its already been confirmed by some executive guy in the company that owns wildcard). I like my Ark and I like my Atlas, but Im the kind of guy that doesnt like his food to touch. Same for games. I agree with having a hard line between the 2. I would be totally happy if we just *tossed out the rework(keep the content though like the trench and biomes), *limited claims to ~2 per person, made it so the more citizens you have living in your territory(citizens=non-company players living on your land) is what dictates how long it would take to steal a claim so it incentivizes landsharing *add moar ships and ship parts(see my other post in general discussions for more detail)

Hear me out. After playing through 7k hours in Ark, and seeing the journey that went on from start to finish, then playing this for many hours I have come to the conclusion that blueprints for ships and anything that goes on a ship detracts from Atlas' potential. Sure the resource hunt is good because it forces us to explore, so by all means they should keep it for armor, weapons, stone structures, etc. For ships though, no. Heres why: Say a skilled solo player is sailing around on his decked out brig and comes across a brig from a big company, and its manned by one player as well(and npcs on all cannons,sails). So it's an even fight on that basis. The rest, like cannon placement, choice of sails are different. Big company guy has his cannons hanging off the edge of his ship and ready to be pounded by cannons. He has a poor configuration of sails, poor ammo choice for his swivels, etc. Meanwhile the skilled player has his sails right, cannons set right, swivels loaded right.The battle begins, and skilled guy is maneuvering all over the place landing hits all day, but no planks break. The other guy keeps missing, but he aint worried. Not a bit. Hell he could flat out stop and bathe in cannonball rain for 2-3 minutes if he wanted. He doesnt though, and instead eventually nails a shot on the skilled boat. That one hit blows through the skilled guys brig and takes out a few planks. Skilled guy keep slanding barrages of hits, then eventually sinks to his lost planks while not having broken any. Sound fun? Its not, for either side. Ive been on both sides, and the uneven ship battles are stupid. It should be entirely up to what stats you put in your boat, how you built it, and your skill as a driver and cannon shooter. To replace tiered blueprints they should: 1)expand upon the "armored hull" idea i heard they are adding for ships and just make a few types of planks 1.1)some that are light and weak and more aerodynamic(would that be hydrodynamic in water?) so it could move faster, 1.2)some that are heavier and reinforced, 1.3) Some that are better for maneuvering and have normal speed and armor rating 2)expand upon attributes to level up on ships(similar to the damage level up they are supposedly adding). 3)make sail placement matter in a more realistic manner, like how a sail being at the front or back would completely change the way in which a boat turns as it would in real life. 4)Add other propulsion methods, like some npc homies below deck rowing away on a predesignated "rowing deck" out of Rowports instead of on cannons and gunports, so you get signifigant speed over normal ships but wouldnt be able to place cannons below deck, the spinning wheel thing thats on NPC merchant ships, etc. If we had this instead of blueprints I think the ship battles would be infinitely more fun, as theyd be more skill based, from how you built the ship, what you used to build it, and so on.

After reading this post, I cant tell if I agree, disagree, hate you or like you(you guys in general). lol I see some reason and logic from most everyones side, I see the problems everyones facing and the solutions chosen at first may seem selfish or short-sighted but arent, and are backed up well. I think that just kinda made me realize even more that the problem isn't each other, it's just the nature of the game mode being shoved upon us.

Ahaha. Youre fired

I'll give you guys a handy secret. go in your keybindings and remap your selfie cam perspective(right Alt) to your left alt(which by default is on that atrocious auto aim that i assume youve already disabled...so you wont miss it), and now...as youre getting close you can press Alt and zoom in and out with mouse wheel to see WAY outside your boat and where, if anything is around you. When you release it goes back to normal camera. You could also press K, but that one is a toggle for it and not as handy. With it on left Alt that leaves my hand resting right by the sail controls and the anchor key(X is the default key, which you can just spam furiously at any speed and as soon as the anchor icon shows up your boat will come to a full stop). I used to be so slow and cautious about anchoring for the same reasons as you guys, but now i just use selfie cam mode and whip up on any shore and slam x to be docked in no time.

I dont think anyone thought they were in the wrong here, legally(or i missed it).

After reading everyones responses, I realize a few things. 1) I may have been here to experience Early Access in its entirety I havent experienced what came before that(free closed beta that required feedback and reporting of exploits, power to revoke access, etc. Basically what I suggested) and that changes things quite a bit, perspective wise. Honestly that sounded better than E.A. because, yeah, some Developers do you use/abuse it as a cash grab. Theres countless games that Ive played that haven't left EA and likely never will. I dont see Atlas as one of those 2)I wasnt saying that people should be punished for using exploits or things like that. They shouldnt, but it should be required to report these things. That wouldnt work with EA, which is why.... 3) I wasnt exactly saying I wanted it the old way of beta testing. EA is the evolution of that but even so it has its weak points too, and another iteration of the concept that is more effective and holds both ends to be more accountable(gamer and game developer) seems like a natural eventuality, no? I personally don't mind the idea of paying to "beta test" games, because it's often like a Kickstarter or sorts, and I understand what you guys are saying: that the current model for EA it would not be acceptable to revoke access and such for a paid game. 4)If there was a new model it'd be on steam to make it happen, doing the things like changing the User Agreement before buying a game to explain the role and that beta access would be a privilege to both parties(gamer and dev) that would need to abide by conditions to maintain that role, with safeguards for both sides(ability to revoke access, inability to review a game until release but instead have a "beta progress report" page for players to maintain personal reports that they can update as often as they life, holding on to half of the cost of an EA game as a safeguard which they would either give to the devs upon retail release or be able to use to refund 1/2 the cost to the gamers if a games EA status is revoked for one of a few reasons like it being abusive of the EA model, being a scam/cash grab, etc. This would also serve to help the dev teams have a sizeable sum for marketing upon release as well incentive to reach the point of retail release. For reference, Ark:survival Evolved had sold 9,104,000 copies by 7/6/2018. Say we be extra generous and shave off half that as sales made after release, and we will price it at 20$ per game since it was 30 in EA but went on sale a lot....Thats $188,020,000 Ark made in EA. Shave off the 30% steam pockets and thats around 125 million of it Wildcard actually made. If half of that were withheld until release or refund, and was sitting in an account gaining interest then steam would be pulling in 5.6million dollars from that one game alone at .06 interest APY. this is just a quick idea that sounds like it'd be good all around, I am sure there are much better ones to be had , and maybe thats my entire point... That, as both a neutral observer and as a biased gamer, EA is starting to show its age. It is good, but can be and should be improved further. I hear a lot of people grumbling about losing access to the beta of a game you paid for, and I understand that, because that's the way out system is at present. If the system was refined to be more effective and with more insulation from losses for both the gamer and developer, more efficient, more trustworthy(as far as if a game will hit retail or not), and was more like i described in point 4, wouldnt that be way better?