Raine

Last night's Live Stream made it clear that their main focus is PvP, by a vast amount. PvE by contrast seems like the redhaired stepchild who is forced to live in the basement.

That's what it looks like to me too. As with most patches, fixing one thing breaks something else. In this case, I don't believe their "fixes" will achieve what they intend to fix. The current proposition clears the board for even more douchery because now there is no way to checkmate griefers.

Taken directly off the video, this shows you there is a PvE mode other than Lawless. The only distinction seems to be an auto-repair facility in the non-lawless version. I could envision it working something like a Ship's Resource Box for your structures, and it may have limited range. I'm just guessing here. But if that's the case then it still won't prevent the spamming-for-resource griefing which could occur. Then again, this is beta so in Grapeshot's eyes, maybe those set on griefing are doing them more service than decent players will.

Around 40m into the playback video, Jat is talking about the PvE servers. He makes a distinction between "lawless" situations which will have customary damage decay, and other PvE situations which will be 'free-buildable', no-claim with structure decay which will require you to build a repair structure to keep your buildings repaired and intact. Therefore, there will be Lawless, non-Lawless and non-buildable islands (Golden Age Ruins and Home Servers per Jat). They expect the repair structure requirement to keep people from spamming with foundations. We don't know if that means the repair structure will be such a demanding mistress it would break anyone's back to keep their spam in constant repair. But that doesn't mean your own little PvE island couldn't become as overpopulated as Los Angeles with legit structures, that it would break the spawns anyway. I think they're reaching for a system of checks and balances but I don't think they're there yet.

Who places the tax bank? And whose structures does it repair? I still think foundation spam could easily be a thing because it's unpreventable. I remember some gambits on Ark PvP where this was done strategically. 8Ball, they're saying PvE will be totally Lawless. You won't have a choice of Lawless or non-Lawless.

Maybe. From what Jat said in the video though, nothing is written in stone. But of course, that's exactly par for the course in beta. At least the devs say they want to pay close attention to feedback.

DannyUK, I hear you. The changes I've seen on Lawless since starting on Day One are horrendous. Some of them have nearly all the animal spawns wiped due to structures, if the area is relatively harmless. I'm on a more lethal lawless server right now, and dying over and over and over again is a given, so the animal spawns are more healthy and intact than the player spawns. But with the new PvE setup, I see more opportunity for resource griefing with an intent to force opponents off a wholly-owned island and ripen it for takeover. Doesn't sound like there's any way to prevent it. I don't see that as enhancing gamer QoL, but YMMV.

Link to a playback of the Live Stream video: Atlas Massive Update and Wipe Live Stream Playback

It sounds like the new setup on PvE would lead to resource griefing. I'm not very clear on the mechanics though. Sounded like each island = one owner, even in PvE. That owner must put down a resource bank to auto-repair structures AND to pay the taxes (which might be the same thing, but it's not clear)...but repair whose structures? Only hers, or also everyone who chooses to build on her island? So if an opposing Company wants the island, what's to prevent them from driving off the original owner by blocking all the resources which could be used to autorepair structures? All land will be buildable, and the resource-blocking unpreventable as far as I can tell.

Trust me, it's not the only beta game I've played. And I've used the same leverage on other people, "FFS, it's beta! Of course it will change drastically." As for Tillman's point that "You never get to keep what you have in beta," I'd have to say that mirrors real life. You're just the current custodian of whatever you think you own right now; some day it will belong to someone else, sooner or later.

It will be a moot point for most of us. Why bother when all the effort will be pointless? Hours of your life down the rabbit hole.

Right now, the other active problem with NPCs is watching them randomly launch into space. That's aggravating; it's not like you can load them with explosives and catapult them into targets even on PvP but I'll bet you dollars to donuts someone will try.

I assume that would apply only in PvP. If Grapeshot has truly fixed the problem of griefers kiting SotD into anchored ships and shipyards, then there wouldn't be a need for it in PvE.

So exactly what is the deal with NPC crew pay? From what I can gather, crew is paid differently according to their work station. Cannoneers are paid more than sail handlers, and both are paid more than deck hands who sweep/repair the ship. All are paid less when certain captaineering skillsets are chosen. If all the above is correct, then wouldn't it be smart to dismount the NPCs from cannons whenever the ship is in port? Or is that not a smart move because it could launch them to the Moon?

How about making special hammocks for berthing on ships, instead of the unattractive beds?

Then again, once you relinquish control, what happens to the land when he decides he's had enough of the game and just abandons it? With that plan, you have control of the neighborhood only once. Once the land isn't yours any more, you would have no recourse over who moves in after that.

Fewer players = more demolish allowed foundations and structures

There is still finite space, even if you appear to open up a few slots via this mechanic. You still end up hitting the wall. If I understand this correctly, it only kicks the can down the road a bit, but doesn't solve the problem. To be fair, I'm not convinced the problem is solvable on Official. There are player limits on any server for any game, and even when you crazy quilt them together into an Atlas map, they're still limited. If you limit the number of claims, there's nothing to prevent a large Company from splitting itself into smaller allied groups and claiming massive amounts of territory. Acquisition is the whole point of most gaming and the Leaderboards make it abundantly clear that the devs encourage this, PvE or PvP. So maybe a better question is, which kind of acquisition should the devs encourage?

Whoa...wait....you mean my ship's crew will siphon hard-won gold from my crewmate's ship?

Open the Food Larder and Feeding Trough inventories and they both plainly tell you they're MESS TABLES. My question is, IF the Feeding Trough is actually a Mess Table, will the crew take food from that as well as the official "Mess Table" which is otherwise labeled as a "Food Larder" when you search for it in the Smithy? I mean, Hell's bell's, when is a Mess Table actually a Mess Table and not a Feeding Trough? And why is it a Food Larder elsewhere?

If your Company has several ships docked next to each other with crew left on Repair Duty, will the Repair Crew draw resources from the other ships if the one they're on runs out of certain mats? Or are they restricted only to the ship upon which they are stationed? I have a feeling they'll pilfer from the neighboring ship if it's also in the Company. Seems logical.

That's a really interesting idea. With more than 1700 discovery points in Atlas, this mechanism would encourage a lot of sailing and a lot of interaction with fellow crewmembers whom you'd want to encourage. The more they sail with you to Discovery Points, the more points your Company receives. That should increase activity in the game, but I wonder how the servers will handle that. I assume there would be a lot more Ships of the Damned kited around unintentionally. They're always a blast.

Heya Bill! It turns out the bactrian camel (two humps) is native to the steppes of Central Asia and has been used as a pack animal since ancient times. Think of the Silk Road, for example. According to Wiki, steppes range from 45 deg C (113 deg F) in the summer and -55 deg C (-67 deg F) in the winter. So the Tundra and maybe even the polar regions might be a natural Atlas habitat for them. Of course part of the Gobi Desert lies in Mongolia, so the camels were used as pack animals there too. They were also useful for meat, cheese, wool, ropemaking, clothing and food.

I think it would be an interesting addition to the collection of animals in Atlas, particularly in the polar/tundra areas. I mean, if the Mongolians can use them, why not Atlasians? [FB video]

That sounds like a much more balanced quest. It avoids preying on other groups and discouraging new players and instead encourages playerbase regeneration, which is what Atlas devs need to encourage. I'd give that an UP vote, for sure.