Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About mgsgta3

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

278 profile views
  1. This makes it so pvp servers cant have "no collision" enabled because anyone can build cannons right there by you.
  2. 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.
  3. delay? they should just toss it, I havent seen one person say they are playing it
  4. Haha this guys got his head on right.
  5. Lol now you guys get to know how Paul Revere felt when you guys invaded us back in the day XD
  6. 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
  7. "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)
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. I dont think anyone thought they were in the wrong here, legally(or i missed it).
  12. 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?
  13. Well... I mean. tht is sad that its how it is(that some people need unofficial to enjoy the game) and thats absolutely how it is for me. I have 6k hours in ark, only 20-30 at the very most are on official. It's my favorite game but you wont catch me on official, and if it only had official I wouldnt play it because the base rates are an insult to my time, plus all the other downsides that are there. It is also true that the modders do have a big hand in making the game, Wildcard was hiring modders left and right(For years I was like "That guy who makes the S+ mod deserves employee of the year even though hes not an employee", but...now he is. You can see so much of S+ in Atlas, which is a good thing overall. The modding community and its role is one of the most genuinely good things about Ark(and hopefully will be for Atlas), where just anyone could create something and if it was good enough it would be one of 10 sponsored mods each month( and given so much money a month to have incentive to finish it). Thats really cool(to me), even with it being something WIldcard obviously did for their own good as well.
  14. That is for sure. Being an Admin is a lonely (in-game) life. I used to admin on pvp servers, and would actually play to give presence but all I could do was build stuff since I wasnt allowed to raid or anything like that. Couldnt say "hey wanna tribe up?" lol It had its plus sides too though and was just as satisfying as playing but in a different way. As for the changes Grapeshot makes, in the order they make them...you both covered it but basically yeah they are making poor decisions. They did that a lot with Ark too, they would implement some seemingly(or actually) awful mechanic or change, often because of incoming content thats related to it but nobody says "this change is a balance for upcoming content" so it seems like out of the blue and incompetent work. It sounds grim but its almost like they get a kick out of causing those temporary panics and uproars because they do it all the time. For the FOY itself, yeah they shouldve waited for the full mechanic to be working first. At present having the FOY being the ONLY option to remove the debuff is absurd.
  • Create New...