Lynx

1 hour ago, Nutcutt3r said:

LMFAO you are the smaller demographic.

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

3 hours ago, Tiberius_theron said:

Grapeshot shouldn't be allowed to call Atlas a MMO if they aren't willing to put in the effort to have proper MMO customer Service GM's.

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.

16 minutes ago, boomervoncannon said:

Doubtful. They've said repeatedly that animals will not be the focus of Atlas. 

It's funny how some players analysis of the game is so paper thin that they glance at the reuse of some assets and immediately go "oh it's just an Ark reskin."  Right. Because Ark had all those profession classes and skill systems and different kinds of sailing ships and submarines and gear you could upgrade after crafting, and different kinds of mats within a single category, and it was definitely about trading resources with others in a vast game world where you all..no wait..

it didn't have any of that.

(That wasn't directed at Lynx btw, just a general observation.)

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

5 minutes ago, Melora said:

And there are no Gigantosaurs and no hordes of T-Rex, with that scary noise. 

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.

10 minutes ago, zwt2135 said:

That doesn't make it any less scummy and cheap.

Tracking on the internet is the way of the future.

34 minutes ago, zwt2135 said:

Now I personally think this is super scummy and borderline cheating but apparently it is allowed at the moment. That being said I understand using every advantage to accomplish the mission but this is something that I think is complete trash and will ruin the game. I have spent hours tracking down my opponents the legit way.

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

3 hours ago, Acurisur said:

That tag is USER DEFINED.

The MMO tag on both Ark and Atlas is dev defined, not user defined.

3 hours ago, Acurisur said:

devs have absolutely ZERO reasons

Single player is a demographic that could make the devs money. That's 1 reason.

17 hours ago, Nutcutt3r said:

Ya thats on you, no handouts yet. But look on the bright side everyone els is doing it too.

You are not making any sense.

1 hour ago, Nutcutt3r said:

There is LAN just start a server. Every server you plan on starts on a lan.

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.

1 hour ago, boomervoncannon said:

And here is the essence of the problem with the Doom and Gloom mentality. This statement shows an underlying assumption that the appropriate comparison is Steam’s top 40 games, anything less is regarded as a doomed game when the reality is steam supports literally thousands of games through its portal. Regarding a game as failing when it fails to compare favorably only to the top 1% of games on a platform is a pretty unrealistic expectation. Atlas had a horrible launch. It has not had an especially promising fist six weeks playerbase wise. It may never be a Steam Top 40 game. There is a vast difference between these realities and doomed, unless you follow the “wisdom” of Ricky Bobby’s dad: If you’re not first you’re last.

 

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.

22 hours ago, Vaenix said:

recode the entire thing

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. 

22 hours ago, Vaenix said:

but it's not like they would be the first game to be online only(a lot do it and a lot are still successful at it).

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.

22 hours ago, Vaenix said:

Also we're going down the "doom and gloom" bullshit again, for the most part atlas population can drop and will during the EA process.  It will have it's rises and falls as people get to the end of the content and take breaks until new content comes out, using that as a justification for your wanted change just shows you don't actually understand this process.

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.

4 hours ago, Bullet Force said:

LAN support? Its not 1999 still is it? Who the hell does LANs in 2019?

It must be what 0.0001% of the entire Atlas population and certainly not something worth the devs time when there are so many major issues with the game that need to be worked on.

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.

7 hours ago, Vaenix said:

If it is something you want, feel free to add it to the "Suggestions"

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.

1 hour ago, Vaenix said:

As someone has already posted LAN is in fact an option.

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

True LAN isn't an option. 

46 minutes ago, Sklex said:

Of course it impacts the mmo players. Development takes time and resources. Both of which should be applied to finishing the game as it was originally intended and sold. 

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.

13 minutes ago, arzosah said:

I would suggest making sure you have the ports forwarded 

This is the part that dosen't work with mobile isp. 

That's why i keep speaking up in the single player or LAN server discussions.

I need the server and client to talk to each other inside my LAN, never knowing the internet exists. Except whatever drm is between the client and steam.

29 minutes ago, MajorAvatar said:

Very well, I bite. the game has LAN support, if you have a little technical understanding about networking. Since i replied on your comments before, i must currently assume, you have little or no understanding about networking - sorry to say so.

I can set up a server, on a LAN, for this game, within ~15 minutes, so can you, if you are willing to dive a little deeper into the matter. It's a 'slightly' more complex setup than a public server setup, that should not hold you back too much.

Anyway, you do not even own or play the game... 

 

 

I have no problem admitting i have little understanding of networking. I bought the game and tried to setup a server that operates behind a LAN with no port forwarding (my help thread was linked above). I was never able to connect to my own server. 

I would be interested in buying Atlas again.

12 minutes ago, MajorAvatar said:

@LYNX do you still own the game or not? if you do not, why you spam every topic with your opinion on it?

I am a potential customer, so my opinion is valid. Or, should no one else buy the game?

8 minutes ago, arzosah said:

It's possible that Lynx's ISP doesn't allow him to have access to his router/modems firewall so he is unable to forward the ports that he needs to run a server.

What i mean by LAN support is LAN only. No port forwarding or NAT loopback needed.

13 minutes ago, Vaenix said:

Because they use completely different networking.

Which is exactly why this thread exist. Discussing the need or want for LAN server support to get added to atlas.

14 minutes ago, Vaenix said:

Atlas is multiple different servers stitched together to make 1 living world.  

Ark is 1 server per map that get linked to allow you to transfer back and forth.

This really shouldnt matter for how a client connects or communicates with just 1 server. I just need communication to happen between server and client to happen all behind or within a LAN.

4 minutes ago, Vaenix said:

If your mobile isp interferes with the batch file that they've released in order to support this option, nothing they do is going to fix that for you.

Go complain to your ISP about them interfering with it.

Then why can i run Ark LAN server just fine? It's because Atlas doesn't support 100% LAN only servers.

Mobile isp dosen't support the NAT loopback required for Atlas servers.

2 minutes ago, arzosah said:

I'm not sure a single player set up would really work, with how the islands are currently laid out you wouldn't be able to do much on a single grid unless all you were interested in was base building and taming.  if you wanted to use powerstone islands you would only want to run 2-3 of them on a grid, and the Krakken would have to be on it's own grid since it prevents spawns on the it's grid.  Each grid takes a decent amount of ram and cpu even when idle, and if you're running it on the same PC as the game client you'd likely run into issues unless you have a pretty beefy PC.

Already a 3rd party program that run only grid at a time for the full map, linked above.

4 minutes ago, arzosah said:

I currently have a server running on my LAN, I do this using the computers internal IP as the seemlessIP in the launch command and the IP in the grid editor.  I still have to connect through steam, I just added the IP:Port for each grid to my favorites.

As i said before, i tried all this before. It didn't work for me.

Here is the post with me getting help, someone even helped me through discord. It was determined that my mobile isp interferes.

I am not going to buy Atlas again, just to have it not work. I need an official statement from the devs saying they support LAN connections.

14 minutes ago, Vaenix said:

You are severely avoiding the reality of the situation.  Ark is a finished game and has been released from it's EA cycle

Afaik Ark had single player mode from early on in development. I don't even really want a SP mode, Ark's is still really buggy.

Just the ability to use my LAN IP in the server .bat file and actually be able to connect.

17 minutes ago, Vaenix said:

And since you seem to not understand or are deliberately avoiding this simple fact.  It is EA, Early Access, Alpha/Beta state.  Nothing is finished, and they can toss the entire thing in the trash and design something different during this process if they really want.  

Why would anyone buy EA with no oversight of actually getting the advertised product?

Sould i stop checking to see if Atlas adds LAN support?

Should i stop saying what i want in the game?

Ark has LAN support. I am sure i am not the only one who bought Atlas, but was unable to setup a LAN server. There were several threads at EA launch of people trying to get LAN servers setup with cpjat64's map tutorial and map files.

After watching the population decrease and all the gameplay problems, not sure there will be a good reason to buy Atlas.

Will have to see what the modding community does to fix the gameplay and if anyone creates a single player rebalancing mod(s).

Someone already created a 3rd party program that will auto switch servers and just run 1 grid at a time with the full map.

5 minutes ago, Vaenix said:

LAN did not work for the first couple of days, there was a menu that was available that shouldn't have been due to the base game being based on Ark. 

I am not talking about the Ark remnant menu. But putting the LAN adress in the server .bat file. I spent hours/days working with people trying to get my server working and the ability to actually connect to it.

I refunded the game, cause it didnt work.

LAN Support is needed. But if the devs don't want money, thats fine too. I will just play Ark.

1 minute ago, Vaenix said:

Why should it?  You are misinterpreting the store page to suit your own needs at this point. 

No, i am not. The storepage promised private or unofficial servers. LAN is a type of unofficial server. I was told that LAN worked for the first couple of days, but was turned off.

LAN is a logical extension of being promised private servers.