Tina Toothpick

Attack windows???? Guys... What are you doing? Stop listening to the morons who tell you "offline raiding isn't PVP". They're wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Offline raiding is STILL PVP; you are still in direct conflict with another player; and therefore it is still PVP. It'd be like saying two warring countries aren't participating in PVP just because they're not on the front lines fighting. No. You do not have to be physically, or virtually present for something to be regarded as PVP. Take a turn based game like chess for example; i could go on holiday mid-game, and spend all my time thinking about the next move, only to come back and then make the move. Does the fact that i wasn't making a move for a long period of time mean that i'm no longer in competition with my opponent? No. The same goes for atlas. People who cry about offline raiding should NOT be on PVP servers to begin with. You're not actually into the real PVP of this game if you dislike offline raids. Honestly, people like you would be content with just an arena server where you could fight head to head with anyone you want, but on the main PVP server? Please keep your PVE concepts out.

Still no removal of the age mechanic, the main reason people dropped out of the game in a nosedive to begin with. Still regarding "top companies" as "top" despite them only having the most land claims, and not actually being the best. Guys. .How out of touch are you?.. How many polls on the age mechanic do we need until you remove it?. . You've pissed off : -people who care about cosmetics -people who want to keep playing their character -people who don't have time to deal with this stupid FOY quest. Just scrap the stupid thing already! Remove age, and you'll see a resurgence in players. The core game (like ark) DOES. NOT. NEED. IT.

Once again "greater than" in this context just stands for an inequality between the numbers. NOT one being superior to the other. I can't believe i have to actually explain this. Nothing makes 7 superior to 6 other than opinion. "Greater than can be defined as an inequality used to compare two or more numbers, quantities or values. It is used when a quantity or number is bigger or larger than the second or rest quantities or numbers. " You're making the mistake of assuming "greater" in this context is synonymous with "superior", which it is not. It simply means "more". "More" does not mean "superior" or "better". "More" pertains to quantity, not quality. "top companies" implies they're of a higher quality, which they are not outside of opinion. Therefore, claiming companies that aren't actually "top" as "top" is false.

Math does not equal "superior". 7 is a larger number than 6, that doesn't mean it is a better number.

Is there some reason you can't put a flag on the top mast of your ship?...Like every pirate ship ever... How did they miss this?

For some reason the mapmaker skills in the seamanship tree require you to go down the branches of shipbuilding. Then on the other branches you have things like navigation and sightseeing.. Talents that relate to mapmaking... It seems to me like someone has made a mistake and put the mapmaker talents in the wrong place on the branches. What does ship building have to do with making maps?.. It makes no sense that you'd need to be able to make a galleon before you're able to perfect mapmaking. It'd make much more sense at the end of the navigation and sightseeing based talents; which is why i'm pretty sure this is an error of some kind.

Aging isn't a great concept. Not the way it is manifested in a game anyway. A bump map, and a debuff. We don't need it. Let us pick what our pirates look like. Don't force us to either be too old, or too young.. And please god.. Don't send us on quests for some obscure fountain in some terribly balanced island whilst holding our character's to ransom

And lets be honest. What should any real pirate's goal be in life, if not treasure? I don't remember pirates wanting to claim land. Not even sure why it is in the game honestly.

Right, but just because they are the devs, doesn't make their opinion any more or less than anyone else's If that were the case, my company is the top; and i'd be just as right as grapeshot for saying that. It is fluff; it means nothing. It is opinions. I want people not to be proclaimed as "top", just some person's opinion, but just the sheer fact of the situation. I'm asking for objectivity. Also, it impacts the game more than you realize; particularly the psyche of the people playing it. They'll read that, and make assumptions that are baseless. It'll make them think to be top, they need to claim land. That is stupid, because it isn't really what makes someone top.. It is just a devs opinion on what is top..Which is as meaningful as you think it is, but in no way factual.

The system isn't a "problem" as much as it is simply incorrect. What it actually is, is land owned. What it is not, is the "top companies". I'm cutting subjectivity from the equation basically. The only thing they're "top" in, are claims. Everything else? Who knows. I'd like it specified so people don't make any false assumptions. Even the word "top" has implications that i think are misleading.. The word "most" would be more apt. "Top companies" should be swapped for "most claims"

It doesn't need replacing? I said it's implications are false, and so it should be removed, or changed to say "land owned", or something along those lines. You don't need to replace a system which isn't necessary in the first place.

Hmm... I like this idea.. Mainly because you can steal gold much easier than you can land. Also it should be labeled "richest company", not "top" Also.. On another note.. It shouldn't be "top companies", it should be just "most land claimed"; or something like that.. "Top company" implies they're superior, which as i've already covered, is false.

There is already enough incentive not to die, there really is no point in making this change.

Then don't use structures as a metric.

Anything that is easier for greater numbers will never be fair. It needs to be scaled proportionally with the size of the company. For example.. Sinking a galleon should be near worthless for a huge company.. Sinking a galleon for a small company should be worth a LOT. You accomplishments would then have to be scaled down the more people you recruit to your company so that you couldn't just drop people in and out of the company to cheat the system. People who play on a harder difficulty (smaller companies), should be more thoroughly rewarded for it. Everywhere should be lawless, and they should implement a structure limit to prevent pillar spam.

Could i just ask.. How does having more claimed land make one company better than another?.. By what real metric are they "superior" ? Claims aren't difficult for companies with huge numbers. To claim they're somehow superior because of land claims is completely false. I myself am part of a smaller company, and we've completely ruined these so called "top companies" on several occasions, in several altercations. But just because we claim no land, we're not better than them?...Are you joking? Claims should not be used to measure which company is the best as it excludes smaller companies who might otherwise be superior. Infact.. If i were you.. I'd remove the whole "top company" thing altogether, as there isn't really a way to measure who truly is the top company. We need representation for smaller companies, who go for quality over quantity. Companies with large numbers are often the worst players out of everyone, because the game is significantly easier when you have more people working together. How can you have people playing on a harder difficulty represented under people who just amass claims?.. It is totally ridiculous, and i suggest you come up with a new way to measure the top company, or remove it altogether. Or atleast do not proclaim them as "top", when they quite clearly are not really.

It is harder to play with a smaller crew; and you give large crews these special rankings? Land claimed doesn't mean they're a better crew; this is just really dumb, and not well thought out. Lastly, i hope this means you're going to be removing the age mechanic, when you mention making the game more aimed at a casual audience. That is the mechanic that hits jobbies the hardest. Not only that, the majority don't like it... So, there is that too.

Scrap the age mechanic, and just change it to fountain of power, give people a buff after they reach a certain level. The devs are ruining this game dancing around the age mechanic, they need to just cut it out, and all problems are solved.

Okay, but WHY do you like it? I don't believe you even know why, which makes me think that isn't what you actually like about the game. I think you'd like the game just as much even if it were not in. Right now, you have a bunch of people who will quit over it, and a bunch of people who don't really mind if it is in the game or not. You wouldn't care if it were in or not, yet a lot of people do care that it is currently in, and ruining parts of the game they care about. The smart choice is to remove it. It is, in my opinion, one of the main reasons people are leaving the game in droves. You'd lose basically nothing, you'd still like the game. People who don't like it are quitting. I want a living game, and i want this mechanic gone.

Why do you like it? Please explain how this is possible.

And i would be right in guessing that none of it was fun?

idd. They've just ignore the majority of the playerbase.. How dumb.. They lost the bulk of players after the FOY patch, and have said nothing in regards to in. They put in a patch that makes it even worse.

Well said.. Ask someone what they get out of the age mechanic, those who say they want it, they don't have any reasons to give.. They literally like it just because; meanwhile people are bleeding from the game because they don't want to have to repeatedly participate in this endless chore, or lose their characters.

They don't listen. There was a poll on the age mechanic where there was a landslide for it to be removed, and they just completely ignored it. They don't care about the game you want, they just want to make the game they want, no matter the cost.

Look, if you're going to force this terrible game design on me, i'd rather do it without having the cosmetic portion of the game ruined for me. Character creation and design is one of the more fun things to do in this game for me, and you spoil it by forcing people to look old when they otherwise might not want their character to look that way. It is annoying that you ruin this part of the game for what is essentially a pointless mechanic, but for some reason you seem to be sticking by it. Yes, despite losing the most significant portion of players after the FOY update, they want to try and salvage this mess of a mechanic. Now that the fountain is for 90 year olds only, i now have no option but to dislike my character, because it will look a way i didn't originally intend. Just like how you have a toggle for making your hat invisible, add a toggle that turns off age appearance, or lets us set it to look the way we want.. I honestly want this mechanic removed for more than just this reason, but this would make it more tolerable for those of us who care about what our characters look like. If you can have a toggle for invisible headgear, you can have a toggle for age, as headgear toggling has more of a gameplay impact than age. I despise how these devs want force this stupid FOY quest on everyone, making bad decision after bad decision; and they just keep making it worse.. It is pathetic.