MaxPower

4 minutes ago, Dappypally said:

It’s a pirate game... not being able to board ships is the most stupid thing I’ve ever heard. 

Well its only in PVE, where you're not suppose to be able to harm other players ships anyway. 

The problem is that this was suppose to be their grand fix to PVE ship sinking. Its inelegant and creates a whole bunch of new problems... not to mention there still seems to be ways to sink other players ships. Simply making it so ships don't sink due to weight in PVE, at least while anchored, would have solved the problem without creating such a mess. 

The thing is, Atlas isn't specifically and has never been marketed as, a pirate sim. Perhaps you're not aware but there are also magic and fantasy elements as well... which aren't the first things that come to mind when I think pirates. I'd also assume, as has been pointed out, that even more fantasy elements (like flying ships) will be added in the next couple years.  
Just like Ark really wasn't about survival in a prehistoric world, Atlas isn't really a pirate game... that's just part of it. 

13 minutes ago, Se7enth Sli7er said:

Why not just a full wipe to make everything fair?

It might be beneficial to YOU but it really wouldn't be very fair to those that have been playing for several weeks, the vast vast vast majority of which haven't done anything wrong. 

43 minutes ago, Nari said:

"The obvious solutions won’t quite work due to some backend stuff, however, we are actively looking into a more delicate and effective solution."

Sooooo glitching out anyone that steps on a non-allied ship is a "more delicate and effective solution"? 

Don't get me wrong, I've been very vocal about PVE ship sinking and I'm glad its sort of kind of maybe not quite fixed, but this feels like something they hacked up in a few minutes without even testing it. Also, something is seriously wrong with their backend coding if there was no way to disable weight sinking on PVE, at least while anchored.  

The patch notes also say they shouldn't be able to move if over encumbered... so even if you can still cling to someones ladder to add weight, how exactly are you suppose to get there carrying too much weight? 

8 minutes ago, Bolognapwny said:

I'm tired of seeing all these threads... PVE kids are spamming the forums and they literally have half the issues pvp is facing.... and everyone knows the squeaky whine ass wheel always gets the grease.... so yeah... Stop crying about Alphas and stop crying about Overwieght grief... build a freaking garage and your problem is solved while the rest of us have to deal with the REAL issues.

I'm sorry but aside from perhaps hackers, which you're always going to have to deal with when you play PVP, there is no PVP issue larger than the one this topic is about. YOU might think there are because you only play PVP and think something that is impacting you is more important than something impacting other players but that doesn't make it so. 

Also, the suggestion of building a garage is a joke right? Building a garage for a Brig or Galleon would be a huge undertaking for a small group and wouldn't protect your ship when you park near an island to explore/trade or when you stop in a freeport. You'd also need a piece of land that makes it possible to build such a large structure, which isn't an easy thing to acquire right now. 

4 hours ago, Jatheish said:

The overweighting issue is indeed a priority for our team and we definitely understand the frustration it's causing. We're working on a more delicate technical solution to resolve it, hopefully, we can get that in as soon as possible. 

My question is still why hasn't a temporary fix been put in place? Its. Not. Hard. Just disable ship sinking due to weight on PVE servers. That should be the case anyway since the weight sinking in general is a poor design choice for a lot of reasons but if it HAS to be in long term, just remove it for now until a permeant solution is in place. This is a major game breaking bug that has kept people from playing for weeks now, this laughably glacial response is unacceptable.

You can say its a priority issue all you want but your actions and other comments on the matter (such as your tone def remarks on this last week when you basically made a joke about players being nice to each other) have shown otherwise. Major exploits in PVP have resulted in swift, immediate action while this has been left in the game for weeks now despite being no less of an issue. This was a known problem within 48 hours of the game releasing and should have been fixed right away. Yet three weeks later its still being exploited on a large scale... there is no excuse for that.

 

19 minutes ago, UDO said:

then a player overloads himself and logs out on your ship,  boom u cant move it as long as he is logged out on it 

Read my post literally right above yours. 

Also, fixing the infinite weight exploit would make this a minor issue as well. 

50 minutes ago, gerok zule said:

The most simple and non exploitable way to fix this is to make it so an anchored ship cannot be sunk by access players or weight its that simple. If people are standing on your boat or trying to overload it it wont work as long as you stay docked. you might have to wait for them to leave but at least you wont lose hours of hard work making a ship...This would stop all the bs griefing without allowing you to exploit weight after unanchoring your ship

Adding an option to expel other players from your ship in PVE would help. 

7 minutes ago, RogueLdr said:

I guess in theory you could pile 50 people onto one ship... but who cares? It's PVE. Why do i care if you give your friends entire company a lift? It doesn't affect me whatsoever. If 100 people want to stand about and do nothing while 3 people sail instead of taking 2 ships it doesn't really matter.

That would give them an advantage fighting things like the sea bosses and SotD. In PVE that's not a huge issue but it IS a balance problem that would favor large groups. 

Also, another problem with your original solution: 20 people carrying 500 lbs would be enough to sink a Schooner. So even if all the movement with weight exploits were fixed, a relatively small group of players with non-overweight inventories could still go around sinking players ships. It would cut down on the individual who decides to sink a Schooner that anchored in front of their house over night but wouldn't solve the issue.  

This solution has its own problems and wouldn't prevent PVE ship sinking. First, #4 would allow people to field much larger crews than they should be allowed. Companies would just have non-member members, so that's a non-starter. Also, its pretty easy to come up with ways to still sink someone's ship with the other restrictions you mention. It might take more people and effort, but it'd still be possible. For example, dropped items still count as weight so a small group with a Brig could pull right next to a Schooner and spit 10,000 lbs of weight onto its deck and sink it without much trouble. And if you only did 1 and 3, one person could stand on the target ship while other players transfer weight to them. 

If its possible to sink other players ships at all in PVE with weight, people will be able to do it. As such my suggested solution which I've posted several times is simple but more comprehensive: 

Ships shouldn't sink when overweight or carrying too many crew, they should simply not move. Boom, fixed. That way it would be impossible, no matter how much effort you put into it, to sink another players ship with weight. The infinite weight exploit, which is a bug from Ark, should also be fixed but doing that alone solves nothing. Quite frankly, ships sinking from weight is a pointless mechanic since you'd have to be a complete idiot to accidently sink your own ship with weight. Its not some sort of major gameplay mechanic and right now its only purpose is to allow griefing in PVE, so it should go. Not to mention it'd be nice to see boarding other players ships in PVP be a viable thing to do at some point. Kind of hard to do that with the current crew/weight limit issue since you could well sink the other ship simply by boarding it with a large party. 

38 minutes ago, DukeBarbeson said:

Hadn't actually click on create company yet so no log, just created one and my sloop was detected and added. 

But is sinking an anchored ship part of the gameplay or a bug/glitch/exploit/etc.? 

If part of the game then it doesn't really follow typical  PVE rules. Alot of time and resources went into building a schooner solo, not really sure I want to go through that again. I heard folks will load up a ship with enough weight or people to sink them but I thought raising my ladder would prevent them from boarding to do that trick. 

Its an exploit. The devs are aware of it but taking their sweet time fixing it for some reason. Their last official word on the topic was "Just be nice to each other", which aside from being tone def, isn't working at all. 

Now its possible something else happened to your ship but there are plenty of ways to get on your ship even if your ladders are up. My advice is to not build or launch anything beyond a Sloop (people don't seem to bother sinking them) until this is fixed.  

Check your company log to see if its been destroyed. Good chance someone sank it on you. 

I think the logic is they get paid more when "working". I agree though that its pretty annoying having to unseat them every time you return home given how glitchy they are. I'd rather they make them one flat price when anchored and one flat price when at sea.

1 minute ago, IsilithTehroth said:

Yes, the spanish armadas did kill millions of people because they didn't have Christian beliefs. Next time at least research the point you are arguing against.

lol wow, someone needs a history lesson. Columbus was dead for almost 100 years before the Spanish Armada was formed (and Columbus himself was Italian)... and its sole purpose was the invasion of England, not killing non-Christians. Horrible try. Think a little harder though and I'm sure you'll come up with another attempt to defend Nazi sympathy. 

The biggest problem with the gaming industry today, and highlighted perfectly by the responses in this thread, are the amount of incel alt-right racists that have inundated the community over the last 10-15 years. Now, I'm not one to be offended by things or report stuff like this in-game. These are just petulant children trying to get a rise out of people and are best ignored. There's a raft parked down the beach from me called "The *** Nog" and I can't be bothered to report it despite it obviously being a racist name. However, unlike some people here, I wouldn't think of defending such a name or saying it should be allowed if someone else WAS offended by it. Why? Because I'm not a whiny little racist that thinks such behavior is OK.

As for the topic at hand here, that's clearly a reference to a concentration camp in Nazi Germany. Just like a ship named the SS Auschwitz wouldn't be a reference to the original town the concentration camp was built in, that's not a use of the German word for a type of wood. Those are just excuses. Such offensive behavior is against the rules and should be dealt with. There isn't really much room for debate there. 

 

Just now, IsilithTehroth said:

A game where you pillage plunder and murder is fine but when someone associates that with real life they are evil. Are you going to be outraged if someone names their ship Santa Maria? Or is it only offensive if You personally find it so?

Just an incident of finding stuff to trigger over. You can't hold present generations responsible for the deeds of their ancestors.

Columbus didn't intentionally exterminate six million people because of their religious belief and the Santa Maria isn't the name of a Nazi death camp. Seriously, how hard is that to understand? 

1 hour ago, Roan said:

Yeah, I rewatched the videos, it's insane if they get away with this. Honestly at this point pvp is unplayable unless you have a 40+ man tribe or your hacking. So we are chilling on PVE till something changes, IF it ever does, and thats a BIG IF!

Just wait till someone sinks your ship in PVE... sort of unplayable over here too if we're being honest. 

30 minutes ago, [616]RexFortis said:

That's because you lack a strategic and tactical mind.  You're more of a social creature than a tactical general.  Someone like you would need the guidance of a military leader to succeed in a Capital Flag system.

Well its clear you're just trolling at this point because you can't handle feedback.

Bottom line is that this is a terrible idea that would favor large companies since they would have the resources to defend their capitals with ease while smaller companies wouldn't. It doesn't take a tactical genius to understand that. Sure, if a larger companies capital ever fell they'd lose everything but it would take such a force to make that happen as to be virtually impossible. 

6 minutes ago, Pappy Green said:

Oh, I don't spam. I only protect the area I plan to use. I live on a fairly large island, plenty of room for others, even now.

Oh ok, that's perfectly reasonable then. Its the people that spam half an island they're never going to use just so they don't have neighbors that are the problem. 

12 minutes ago, Pappy Green said:

It's called "lawless" for a reason. I will admit, I do this because far too many times pass through resource farmers will build some ugly pos to use only temporarily and leave without removing it and It blocks me from expanding my settlement. Or the guy who beaches his raft, builds a 1x1 or 2x2, gets killed and never comes back. Or even worse, the storage on the ground people, 16 days before I can get rid of it. And as far as dev intent, do you really think they think things through that far? I don't. 

The problem with what you're saying here is that technically lawless isn't intended for you to build a large, permanent settlement. Obviously right now there is nothing really enforcing that and I myself live in lawless because the claim system is so screwed up (although I'm not a land grab jerk ).

However, you're basically saying you foundation spam to prevent people from using lawless how its intended. How are new players suppose to use it to get a foothold if you take all the land with foundations because you don't want new players building by you or you build a massive permeant base there? No offense intended but if the developers ever make major changes to lawless that make it harder to stay here long term, it'll be such tactics that forced their hand.  

5 minutes ago, [616]RexFortis said:

Large companies fear this idea?

Of course not. While such a system might make some of their more far flung claims more vulnerable to capture, the same system would make it a LOT easier for small companies to lose everything since they'd have a much harder time defending their "capital" than large companies would.  

Also, there won't be server resets. This isn't WW2 Online... too much time and effort goes into a game like this and people would be very unhappy if the devs added routine server wipes. 

As with a lot of things in Atlas, this was a huge problem in Ark. That's why they came up with the half baked claim system, to try and prevent foundation/pillar spam. While the claim system has a lot of problems it does seem to have helped with this. 

Lawless is another story though since it functions basically like Ark did. People want to secure property in lawless and are using foundations and pillars to do it. Its one thing if you plan to build somewhere and use them to make sure no one blocks you in but a lot of people just don't want anyone building close to them. My one neighbor in the game for example has a 4x4x4 square house... but has foundation spammed for hundreds of yards around it for some reason. They even spammed right up to the edge of my house to the point where I couldn't put my roof on (I reclaimed property with the enemy foundation range reduction). There are also three foundations someone placed down two weeks ago and isn't doing anything with yet keeps refreshing them. 

Its easy to say "fix it!" but its not that simple, which is why this is still an issue in Ark. Keeping foundation resource block turned off in lawless is a viable solution for now to prevent some griefing. A more permanent solution might be to add a no-build zone around vital resources like metal and perhaps make small buildings and solo foundations/pillars decay much faster than large structures. They could also try something where the more foundations you have placed, the faster your stuff decays in lawless, with the rate accelerating rapidly past a certain point. That would discourage large base building and land grabbing in those areas, which the devs have specially said aren't intended for permanent settlement.

43 minutes ago, LockeMurdock said:

Has there been an update on this issue yet? I haven't seen any notes in recent patches about fixing costs.

There really isn't an "issue". Some ship costs WERE changed... they just weren't as drastic as the patch notes indicated they might be. 

5 minutes ago, Case of the Scurvy said:

From a dev on steam forums, on this very subject today.

 

Jesse rapczak 

Griefing is not encouraged on PvE, of course. And we are well aware of this issue, it will be addressed!

Check the data again.... he posted that on the 7th, not today. 

28 minutes ago, Asanna said:

But I can promise you they at least don't do like they need to testing wise. Otherwise things would be added to their to-do list in a much more timely manner instead of users having to bombard social media to get a response. 

Honestly, my biggest suggestion to the dev team? Set up a small 2x2 or 3x3 test server. Make it public and deploy all builds there for at least a few hours before pushing them into the live servers. Clearly with some of the issues we've seen their in-house testing system isn't working very good and the patches need to be tested in a more real-world environment. 

This is big IMO because you're deploying patches to live servers where people have a LOT of time invested. Mistakes can be very costly and really anger your player base. The relatively small cost of a test server would seem a worthwhile investment to me. 

21 minutes ago, boomervoncannon said:

I can't count how many times I've seen Pvpers in various games act like, claim, imply, and make demands based on the idea that pvp is the majority of the players when all available evidence says otherwise.

Its certainly fair to argue that Atlas was designed as a PVP game, same as Ark. However, at least on official, that's not where most people are playing it would seem.