Martyn

Nope.

This as discussed with Guy Threepwood is an obsolete viewpoint. I now accept that most of the decision making is made by the settlement owner, however I am still somewhat confused what the settlement owner can do with previously built structures on an island they are claiming. Do they become his structures? Can they destroy them within the 12 hour period. And so on. Hmm. But I still don't see why people need to think that because they've seen a bad apple in a market stall, that all the apples they see in future will be bad. Which seems to be the prevailing attitude. Sure some owners will be bad owners, some will want an island purely for their own xenophobic reasons. ie Only chinese, only russians, only british and so forth.. others will be happy to have 3 or so other companies or multiple other people settle with them and won't grief them etc. Yet others will fall somewhere in between. But until you get to that position it isn't important. Also the idea of creating a system that is utterly foolproof is something that occurs during development not at the start. You're making demands for a released game in a partially created game environment. It is almost as if, you've discovered a foolproof way of arguing over nothing. Just for the sake of arguing.

It says won't be able to destroy via pinwheel and it says will have to do it manually, if manually means purely pvp then sure. If it means the owner can destroy anything, manually, pvp or pve that's a different meaning. The extension for pve beyond 12 hours could refer to the pinwheel or manual task. If it does it does.. So essentially, it does not mention what happens to buildings already in place, hours, days, weeks before the owner claims the island. Only what happens within the 12 hour period after the island is claimed and buildings are erected. There seems to be an assumption that owners will get to the islands first or that the first on the islands will have all the required abilities to place a tax bank, make a claim and thus have the rights of the settlement owner. As I said previously, I'm happy to wait and see exactly how this works out, before drawing my conclusion as to wether I'll continue play or not. Rather than come up with potential reasons before hand. But I'm glad we got this cleared up, now you can move on to some other thread, feeling some accomplishment.

Looks good, thanks for bring this to everyones attention. I'll probably buy this as well. Atlas without ships, better guns and if they have taming and building sounds perfect.

I don't see where the devs say any of that. It says clearly they can destroy via pinwheel within 12 hours and otherwise will have to go upto the item manually. It doesn't mention pve or pvp relationship to whats being destroyed. Again, this is one of the kinds of issues, that we will find out about, after ptr releases hopefully, or at least after the wipe. If you have a link to this, I'd like to read it. And can we drop the "are you so naive" petty insults. I'm not interested in discussing issues, if you're going to insult me in every post. The pinwheel activates off a keyboard command, so they shouldnt need to be anywhere, just logged in. It should even be possible to setup commands like pinwheel destroy via a mobile phone app.

[Upto this point I hadn't read Log 23, because I hadn't seen it was out.] So the 12 hour period is only for the pin wheel, otherwise they can manually destroy everything on an island by going to where it is. So it seems, this relates mostly to stop griefing, trolling and non allied companies from building on your island. Not to specifically target smaller groups or solo players. It could be exploited to do this. Since afterall the island now belongs entirely to the claiment not to anyone who previously lived there. Non company players, meaning small groups, solos would then have to leave the island, ie would be kicked out.. if they were unable to find a way to interact with the owner in a peaceful way. Again it's down to individuals and how they can get on with people. Not a specific issue that will happen across the board as many people seem to indicate.

Where does it say anything about 12 hours? Also is it 12 hours from settlement claim or 12 hours from when a building or foundation is placed? I am not trying to shutdown discussion at all. That's you misreading what I'm posting. If anything, it would seem, you are generally the more aggressive poster, making round house claims and throwing out random insults, which do shutdown discussions. You also seem to be very good at misreading what the devs have stated to mean something else. Mostly in the negative.

Can't see any reference to any 12 hour or so limits. It says clearly, a settlement owner can freely damage players or structures in their owned settlement. That's all. As for your statements of the devs have told us, can you list those references? Because I can't see them. The exact statements if possible. As far as I can see from Players will need to: Skill up, to the desired level required to make a Claim Tax Bank. They will need to find all the required resources to build a tax bank. Then they will need to find a free unclaimed island to claim. They then build the tax bank. Then can claim the settlement area. How big a settlement is, is unknown. *Entire island* Can you have multiple settlements per island, depending on size of island? Don't know. If anyone does, please list exactly where it's stated. * Only one claim flag can be placed per island, and the owner (player/company) is the owner of that Settlement. * General Rules 3rd Line. The owner, his/her company then owns that settlement area. People outside of that settlement cannot be interacted with. They are freeholds essentially, until someone comes along, places a tax bank, claim flag and then they could find themselves within a settlement. Thusly, could find they stuff being destroyed etc. by the new company owner. Dependant on the player/s moral compliment. * Settlement owners can freely damage other characters and structures on their island. * Settlements 5 line down. We don't know how much of this related specifically to pvp or to pve.

We know what they intend, we know what they want. We don't know how it actually works. People are saying foundations won't block other players foundations like they did in atlas or do in ark. But they might, a landlord might well be able to go around destroying the works of people who are griefing or trolling others, they might or could potentially just troll you and demo anything you make, in which case you leave and go elsewhere. Otherwise, they'll be seeking to assist you. If you build too close to resources, maybe the foundations will block those.. in which case, isn't it a good thing if you get a landlord who actively seeks to keep those areas clear? There are alot of questions that need to be answered as to exactly what a landlord can or cannot do, why they would do it and so on. And how these things can be exploited. Concentrating on only the negative, oh they'll just ruin our lives is not really that useful to anyone. As it is purely your imagination at play. Not what will actually happen.

Then don't tame animals.. seriously.

I, like you, have no idea either. It might require a permission thing, landlord selects you, selects building or maybe there's a cooldown period or whatever.. but I suspect, knowing how ark devs worked in the past they'll take the simplest route.. but you're assuming every landlord will treat you this way, they might not, they might talk to you first, explain how they see their area being setup... allowing you a chance to work with them.. until we actually see whats ingame.. there's no way of knowing how something will work out, what the devs say they want it to be, isn't always how it turns up. It could be great for a few months then broken or vice versa.. We wait n see. And stay positive. There's many things in life that could happen, but they mean nothing, until they do happen. As for negative v positive attitude.. it's just how I read your post. That you're only seeing the negative in the new system. Not the positives. A landowner, if a bigger knowledgable company, might have a better setup, might have extra tames you can use, might have a different idea on how or where to build, they might share that with you or might not.. but it's like you're just assuming that because the system is changing, it's bad and it can only get worse. That just isn't the case. There are bullies, hackers, cheats, thieves etc in gaming.. but there's also guardians, police, monitors and moderators, people who have alot of experience and patience, willing to explain, help out, etc. So don't just hate a system, until you've actually used it at least. And Spiders eat flies.. a fly wouldn't go near a web if it knew it was there. Nor a player will stay on a given island, if the landowners are spiders.

It isn't really about getting free stuff. It's about keeping the server tidy. You can sink the ships and kill the animals after claiming them. OR put up with them hanging around for weeks to decay naturally.

Cor that's bright..

Well certainly different to you. I play both pvp and pve. I think you just want a "I Win Now" button.

What is a potential bad landlord? Oh right.. everyone else..

You haz issues bud. But whatever. Point 1 - You are also guessing. Point 2 - Landlord can destroy your stuff, whilst you're offline, then just pick up your bags, making it his stuff. Unless they lock the bags. Point 3 - Pvp has the flag claim system. So they can fight over land. Until we know what is or isn't noone knows what a landlord can or cannot do. But guess. I'm just pointing out pros n cons. Not facts.

It's a first come, first served system, that we as humanity have been using for over 5,000 yrs. You find empty land, you lay claim to it, or you live there and say the land owns you.. If someone elses comes, they have to find empty land. Foundations and Pillers, Gates etc will "claim" your area. Noone will be able to build within your area. It'll be like Ark.. Walls of Gates, peppered landscapes with pillers everywhere. There will come a time when people leave and their land still cannot be claimed for a period of time, there will be times when someone just logs in every two weeks to refresh the claims. But there will be times when you can. Because the land is effectively empty. As for landlords.. yes this is a very exploitable system. Like in Eve for example, you can make a friend, join with them, make a company, add more people, until there's thousands of you. Then you could kick everyone out and sell all their stuff, because it'd be all your stuff. Any company owner or tribe owner in Atlas or Ark or Eve can do this... every single one of them could do it. But will they? That's life folks.. If you want your own cake.. find an empty island, make it yours, you become the landowner.. how will you treat everyone else? Like you'd like them to treat you? Or.. Be a man of action, not a man of words. (or woman, or whatever those others think they're called)

Can shoot crocs with them. And Ships of the Damned.. and your own stuff. And your mates.

Think you can claim rafts only. I'm sure I've claimed someones raft.. or maybe I'm misremembering doing it in ark. Since I've been playing abit of that as atlas wasn't quite what I wanted it to be.

You seem to be focusing on the negative side of the changes, rather than on the positive. Realistically, both arguments are right. Some people will use the new rules to try to bully people, others will take responsiblity and try to protect people. The new system per se is a good improvement, but it can still be exploited. So it will need further improvements in due course. You're also focusing on the negative side of what people could do and not the positive. The problem with both of you is you. Not the new systems.

It looks great imo. I think it's odd when people say their opinion is what they think the devs are developing.. no. It isn't. Grapeshot decide what kind of game they want to make, we decide if we want to play it or not. We don't get to decide what they want to do, that isn't how it works. The idea of a fantasy pirate game is fine. The new animals, changes to creatures etc is fine, so long as it's a believable world and everything looks like it has a place and aren't just weirdly skinned things thrown in just for the sake of having something that is alien over what already exists. ie Odd looking lions instead of lions, 2 headed tigers instead of tigers, fat ankys instead of ankys.. etc. Make the animals with purpose and imagination, if an animal has a weird looking horn or nose, give it a whistle or mating call or something to match that change, to give it a reason for existance. Similarly with the ships, the Ships of the Damned look like something from some other weird plane of existance and completely unlike ships at all. Then we get ships to use that aren't really ships, but glorified boats with masts on, sure basic models, to be updated later. So it's all good. If everything is to be updated later and new systems added now and later to improve the game it's all good. And I'm quite happy with the progression, sure I'd like it all now, right now. But that isn't possible and I understand that, as should everyone else.

At the moment sure. But until the wipe goes through noone knows how many will actually return. So it's a moot point trying to suggest there's noone playing at the moment, as that's pretty obvious, noone will until it get's sorted out.

Is it just my end or is everyone having this problem?

If this was battlefield or cod for example, even ark, the above might make sense.. but give the "servers" can hold potentially 20-40,000 players on one.. it isn't just 2 pvp and 2 pve servers, it's actually something like clusters/clouds of 225 servers x4 = 900 servers.. so no not 4 servers at all. And adding another network for small or large empires or pve would likely entail another 225 cluster of servers. And that's alot of servers. And just a 15x15 grid. They could and probably should add 3-4 network clusters/clouds just for East Asia to play on, plus one more for SE Asia and Australian players.

The thing is, you can actually go big and go small at the same time, there's no reason for a mega comprised of many smaller groups to play purely as a horde running around stamping everyone out. They could engage as small groups.. just running under the same flag. This way they could control a much bigger area. But, smaller groups would also engage them, so long as the "mega" didn't all turn up later and flatten them out of spite.