Lynx

Probably more playing Ark single player right now than Atlas total players.

It not really a MMO. The MMO tag is basically meaninglessness. Its a pirate survival sandbox. Servers aren't supported by active GM's and will never be. Unless you pick unofficial servers with good admins.

I said equivalent. That dosen't necessarily mean animals.

They might add the equivalent of these.

Without a single player mode, Atlas will not be as popular as Ark. It's a smaller demographic.

Tracking on the internet is the way of the future.

Its always been allowed on Ark. Thats why there are so many 123 steam names.

The MMO tag on both Ark and Atlas is dev defined, not user defined. Single player is a demographic that could make the devs money. That's 1 reason.

You are not making any sense.

What are you talking about? LAN servers without port forwarding do not work. The server cannot directly talk to the client only within a LAN. Internet and port fowarding are required.

My original statement wasnt all doom and gloom. It was just stating that if an easy to use LAN (no port forwarding) option existed then maybe the population wouldn't have dropped as much. Since players who gave up on servers and griefing are just quitting the game, my suggestion of LAN ability would give players an alternative. And, before unofficial servers get suggested, some people are unwaveringly against them. This is what worked for Ark, there is a significant percentage of people playing either single player mode or LAN server.

I don't see changing the network connections for server and client as recoding the entire thing. It could be simple. We don't know. LAN (no port forwarding) is just an extension of the existing unofficial server software. True single player mode would be part of the client and be a big project. Not what this thread is about. Atlas appeals to the Ark community. So unless the devs make a statement saying they will never development or allow direct internal lan connections then people will still hope for this. Really? "Doom and gloom"? Look at steam charts. The negative almost linear trend, is unlike the other top 40 games. But believe what you want, i was merely stating facts.

There is an increasing number of people getting internet from mobile isp. These will not function for internet servers, port forwarding dosen't work. I would guess that most of the current Atlas owners who now just want to play alone in a single player world or LAN server, have simply quit the game. Population shows this. And the demographic of people who will only buy if single player mode is an option, simply will not buy. The devs chose to offer server software and a devkit. I should be able to get the server to two-way communicate with my client behind a LAN. Ark does this. Also, what about people who want to host and the same machine they play on? Really a server cannot directly talk to the client that's in the same machine? No. There is already a suggestion about adding single player mode. This discussion isn't about a true single player mode, meaning the client would run the server. It's about extending the existing advertised unofficial server functionality, to include no port forwarding LAN server conditions. With the Altas population dropping, implementing LAN (no port forwarding) could help increase the population and bring in new customers.

That person wasn't talking about a true LAN server, but a port forward internet server. True LAN isn't an option.

Ark is also listed as an MMO and it has both single player mode and LAN server connectivity. LAN servers would be beneficial to the game development. Its could be used by the playerbase (beta testers) to help test bugs and especially bug repeatability conditions. Also, players who need a break from official servers, would have a choice other than quitting or unofficial servers. Unless you really like seeing the game drop on the steam charts. Since unofficial servers exist, the 'only one official way to play' argument dosen't hold up.