Rovalis

Nailed it. It was nice to see this thread end up somewhere logical. I called this nonsense a month ago and it's a breath of fresh air seeing the changes come through. The game wasn't meant to be Rust screwed Ark and spit out Atlas. It's meant to be it's own game. All these people crying about the changes are just upset that their gravy train got nerfed.

You're right, I apologize for lumping you in with that blanket statement regarding the others. At the time of my posting that I think I got my names mixed up. I went back and checked out some of the things you've posted and I realize I made a mistake. I agree with you 100%. I'm not in favor of offline invulnerability, nor am I really in favor of anchored ships having built-in defense buffs... It's definitely a step in the right direction but I don't think that's a lasting solution. I'm not looking for an echo chamber by any means. The difference in opinion is what creates the dialogue that leads to that lasting solution and I'm not egotistical enough to pretend like I've got all the answers. Words aren't that hard. I'm not sure how you conflate complex sentences with anger but you do you, little buddy. In my previous post the only pejorative term I used was "fool". If Jerkwad offends you then you need friends imo, not sure what to say there... The dictionary is our oyster and it's not hard to build on that if we really want to find some choice adjectives. Don't be offended. I'm fairly certain I've acknowledged every nonsense point you've made on this subject every time I've quoted you. It generally goes the other way where you find one line out of my entire post and just isolate it for some convenient little quip. It's basic psychology and common enough that most people understand what you're doing without any education on the subject whatsoever. Let this go before you tie your brain in a knot. There isn't constant name-calling in my posts. Maybe there's just a pattern in my responses to you. It's a shame you're not observant or mindful enough to recognize that distinction. I decided you never deserved my respect based on the things you were saying to others before I ever quoted you. I've watched how you talk about this subject and the general attitude and disposition you have regarding it. You take this to the point of completely disregarding the subject matter at hand and dive into multiple paragraphs about feelings. You know if you actually got into a discussion regarding sensible mechanics you'd have nothing to say. As far as personal harassment, you're reaching really far buddy. I have a positive reputation on the forums and I'm generally respectful and considerate. You and the few others are the exception to this. I could have jumped into these threads much sooner and I didn't. I let most of January go just watching the forums and posting nothing. Your patterns made themselves crystal clear and you got judged for it. Don't cry about it. Just move on if you're not happy with what the bad man on the internet said to you. tl;dr for anyone else... I'm just sick of a choice couple of people digging their heels in as deep as they can to try and stave off the necessary game improvements. I'll sit out of this thread from now on, see ya in the next one!

I haven't proposed any particular solutions so I don't have any agenda. Every post I make talking about it mentions the fact that these are early access issues for an early access game. I don't recommend duplicating EVE's mechanics, I've only used them as an example of systems that work that aren't flat-out ORP. I expect something new and different and I'm sure that will happen before a full release. 300% damage resistance on anchored ships is a step in the right direction to be sure. I've been over this with you. You just ignore it and keep on keepin on.

I'm sick of getting griefed too buddy but I haven't seen any of these floating cannons or aimbots or whatever. I've had people clip through the bottom of my ship... I've had people fall through the earth and become impossible to hit... random early access video game nonsense. I don't mean to pretend that people aren't hacking, or at the very least... trying. But I haven't seen it personally. My logic is if you're going to go and flame this hard on the forums then you need to substantiate it with real proof. You're capturing just regular gameplay and making yourself look like a jerk.

How many times are you going to say this rinse/repeated garbage? You literally contradict yourself in half your posts anyway. It's early access. People are pushing the edge of the mechanics to discover the META. The developers are made aware of this because that's the entire purpose of early access, and then the developers decide if it's working as intended or if it is in need of a change or fix. Very few things are set in stone during early access, and the fact you think offline base raids are the content they are going to keep is insane. You've got to understand this isn't how the game is intended to be, what's going on here is temporary. Everybody crying about it fails to realize this as well. I'm only annoyed at the sheer numbers of genuine pricks trying to go to bat for this broken system, not the system itself. If you could kindly shut up and let the game take its course that'd be great... all you're doing is creating roadblocks and pit falls for the community and hampering the communication.

Lmao this is ridiculous. It's the same jerkwads over and over just pouring over every thread trying to fight off ORP in any way, shape, or form. BULLET FORCE and Itsme and LABATTS and DOCHOLIDAY. Surprise surprise.... If you fools wants Ark mechanics, go play fucking Ark. I'm sick of beating the same dead horse. You guys have nothing to counter the arguments points, you simply just spew off the same nonsense I've heard in Ark for ages. "PVP bro, it's PVP! PVP or gtfo! Omfg you killed me im calling my russian megatribe broz! PVP qqqqqq"

I don't think you did. Share the timestamp if you think you did because nobody else is seeing it except for BLUE FISH, who tends to cry about anything and everything.

Bahahaha, first of all... you're a child. All of the statements in my post were based off observation, not conjecture or fabricated from thin air. It's clear you just don't like being called out and criticized so you'll arbitrarily ignore things. I'm not surprised and it's not like it wasn't expected, but if you're going to pull some childish nonsense then why go on to drop 4 paragraphs? To be fair, your paragraphs are maybe a single complex sentence so it doesn't make a lot of sense, but I'll give it to you. I don't care whether you go out of your way for offline raids or not, whether you announce in global or not, whatever the hell story you think is worth telling. I don't care. Nobody does. You're here because you justify a certain perspective, and you'll defend it tooth and nail because it makes sense to you. It's easy psychology. The problem here is that you're not able to detach enough to look at the greater picture objectively and really understand the cause and effect. It's apparent that you're not going to change your tune just by having a discussion, so instead, good luck cupcake. Atlas WILL eventually implement something along the lines of ORP. Whether it's ripped straight from Ark or it's adapted from games such as EVE, it's going to happen. You should get to work wrapping your little noggin around these things instead of trying to dig your heels in and fight the inevitability. Again, nobody wants to discuss strategy, tactics, your company, you "pvp mindset". You are taking away from the point completely, and it really looks deliberate - even if you're too simple to be aware of it.

That video just shows you getting wrecked. Legitimately... no hacks about it.

This is ridiculous. You can't see him actually hitting the wall. You have no idea what he's actually hitting from this video. He could be hitting anything in there and you'd see the damage numbers popping up. Just because you saw numbers in the direction of the wall doesn't mean the wall was actually what was being damaged. How did you figure out how to build half the shit you have without understanding this? You weren't "shoot in the head". First of all, you were already damaged due to being cold. You don't have any armor, he probably had a blueprinted tool that he just beat you to death with. You lagged while you were punching him and he probably got two hits in right there. It took him 5 or 6 swings to kill you and that's the end of it. Stop crying with this garbage man. Nobody needs to be concerned with what's going on here and you're taking the attention away from actual issues.

I've asked people this straight up. I'd rather get a good fight and go home without loot than spend 2 hours attacking an undefended stone base and going home with loot. A lot of the time if someone provides me with a good fight I'll leave their base alone. It's when they have no interest in fighting that I'll destroy their base. I'm interested in content and neighbors that provide that content - good fights - willingly.

SWG is not even close to an apples-to-apples comparison. Establish pre or post pub 9, talk about your combat medic shenanigans, talk about how many Jedi that didn't care about TEFs that were helping you. Besides, SWG was a completely functional game and you weren't dependent on your faction warfare bases to participate in the rest of the content of the game.... Try again. All you're doing is trying to keep your offline-raiding gravy train rolling. Offline raiding is not gameplay. It's basically time-theft when you stop and consider what's going on. If they advertised this game as time zone musical chairs for boats then nobody would play it. Obviously it's early access and these mechanics are, again, obviously, not concrete. If you think this is working as intended then you're just delusional. You're just assuming how some kind of offline protection would work. It doesn't have to be offline = invulnerable. Have you not played any other games? EVE online sorted this out a decade ago. There are very functional, viable ways to handle ORP that aren't just invulnerability. And in that case your assumed scenario is just nonsense.

we got a bad ass over here. step off, guys... this old boy got it taken care of. He didn't want to reply to any of the existing posts so, by god, he went with his gut and made an entirely new post to naysay the players. It's not like early access clearly has some shenanigans right? He's just assuming it's working as intended lmao... There's a difference between thoughtful mechanics and mechanics that are broken so you have to work around them. This is clearly the latter. I don't disagree with one of the previous posts, it's just not that hard to swim around for a sec and double check the lay of the land... but you shouldn't have to. There are plenty of tedious mechanics in this game that make sense. This one does not. If the shipyard is allowing itself to be placed, it should also consider the keel of the ships that will be launched from it... meaning a tiny shipyard can obviously launch a raft onto extremely shallow water, but a large shipyard can't launch a galleon in that same depth of water. This is the case currently, which is great, but it's not built into the placement requirements of the large shipyard.... it will just allow you to drop it in some really ridiculous spots. I see this abused more-so for wall placements than people accidentally building a ship in a spot that obviously won't work, but still... even then, that doesn't make sense either. Shipyard walls? Makes sense.

So, it's pretty apparent here that you're so vehemently defending the tried and true offline base-raid because you benefit from it. Lets take a step back and look at this objectively because you clearly lack the ability to empathize with others who aren't as fortunate as yourself. And while I'm still on that point, to take that a little bit further... you're just spewing libertarian jargon into a video game. Obviously "fun" is an opinion. If the structure of the game doesn't prevent or discourage offline raiding tactics then it's perfectly viable. It's like people complaining about the zergling rush in Starcraft back in the day... if it works, it's going to be utilized. If there isn't a viable defense, it's going to be abused. If it isn't addressed in forward-motion, it's going to break the community. This happens every day in real life and otherwise. I'd feel comfortable assuming most people who play video games competitively would describe "fun" as winning. Winning, on its own, can be described as many different things, so that's just another opinion when it comes down to it, but suffice to sum it up as "winning" is "fun". Now with that loosely established, there's a line that has to be drawn there. If you play for a professional NFL team and you go play against a college Junior Varsity team, winning isn't going to be much fun. It's assumed you're going to win, and when you do, there's not much you're going to gain from it. It's barely quantifiable as a win because it wasn't ever competitive. This is true even from a psychological standpoint. There's no fulfillment or satisfaction in what we call a "gimme". Guess how you could describe offline raiding? Take a shot in the dark. To revisit the earlier point, you're discussing the mechanics of a game in early access and in a clearly untested vicinity of development. If you think that these mechanics are concrete and unchanging then you clearly didn't learn much from the other survival games you claim you played. Games like these typically evolve at incredible paces due to the overwhelming community feedback. Also like I mentioned earlier, it's apparent you're just looking out for your gravy train - I get that and I'm not even mad at it. I've played damn-near everything out there as well, with the majority of my experience and enjoyment coming from EVE. What you're doing is practically the only consistent meta in EVE. Find something that works? Defend that shit and keep it copacetic for as long as possible. Google search the Rooks and Kings/Aperature Harmonics story and you'll see how shit like this can become so incredibly cancerous that groups in the game literally corner tens of thousands of other players by advocating to developers why changing the game to offset their "gravy train" is a "bad thing". In this example, you would be part of that community that wants to keep the game skewed to your benefit. It's a totally human thing to do, but it's also fairly despicable when you stop and examine it. I'm not in favor of invulnerability while logged off. I'm not in favor of free targets while people are logged off either. There's got to be some kind of middle ground that can be achieved here. I notice you didn't mention you played EVE, but I think you'd be really satisfied with the way the developers of EVE tackled this kind of issue. EVE relies on what's called the Sov System. Sov standing for sovereignty. If you don't take the time to claim sov in a system then your structures can be destroyed just like anything else. If you DO claim sov then there are mechanics in place to prevent your structures from just being steamrolled by the first group to come across it. They have to attack a particular structure with massive amounts of hitpoints. It's designed this way so that it's not just a 2 minute stop-and-go... if you want to destroy somebody's stuff then you need to invest the time and effort with the proper weapons to make it viable. Once you do, a timer starts counting down - usually between 8 and 15 hours, but can be longer or shorter depending on how it's set up. This is done in order to give the defenders ample time to log in, review the logs and figure out what's going on, and then coordinate with their group to defend their structures when the timer hits 0. Attackers like this for two reasons - one, it provides content. People in EVE have learned that attacking structures that don't shoot back is fucking boring. It just is. Nobody complains about free loot but nobody wants to spend an hour or two literally just sitting there watching a structure burn down. Good content is good fights, and good fights tend to happen when people have something to defend that they really don't want to lose. The second reason is two-fold.... If the defenders show up and give a good fight, win or lose, the attackers typically won't destroy their structures because the real objective was the good fight. The second reason for this is that if the defenders don't show up to defend it or show up with a really overwhelming force to discourage any kind of good fight, it's a great day for everyone because everyone's waiting for those big fights to break out. Suddenly the major powerblocks of the game come out to play because the small brawls just aren't worth their time. A small disclaimer here would be that obviously not everybody plays by the rules. Fortunately, the sov system can't be circumvented without major scamming and espionage, so there just isn't a way to grenade people's stuff when they're logged off unless those people are within your company or alliance. TL;DR - EVE online has had this sorted out for a decade. It's frustrating seeing all these people rattle on and on about solutions when it's already perfectly on display within EVE. Just go read about it instead of pandering on and on about all these newfangled solutions and whatever. It's like everybody around here wants to reinvent the wheel...

clearly a stretch, the guy's been overexplaining the same point to you for three pages. Good fights are good content. Killing people that are logged off and looting everything they have isn't content, it's glorified harvesting.