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.

14 hours ago, Chucksteak said:

In this context, yeah absolutely.

7>6

Say it out loud. Its called the say it out loud test. 

Seven, is greater than, Six.

If we are rolling dice,  id rather have 7 than 6.

If we were fighting id rather have 7 people on my side than 6.

If we were having an orgy, id rather have 7 women than 6.

Its a basic principle, sure you can start adding caveats and conditions, but the basic logic is very sound and really very well tested. They even came up with the easy to read mathematical statement just in case it wasnt clear.

7>6.

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.

14 hours ago, Chucksteak said:

Because math. Before I proceed, know I am a big proponent of a flag limit per person. Id be OK with 1 flag per person, at least at first.

One way: 1 person spamming flags can do X flags per hour. Where a 100 person company can do 100X flags per hour. Its a simplification, but that would be the equation where X can be any task in the game. The 100X will always be > the 1X. 

Another way: Flags can be taken. The ability to KEEP flags and continue to plant more, implies a greater sphere of influence. This is a correlative metric to power.

Why is America the most powerful nation in the world? We are everywhere. Same principal.

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?

24 minutes ago, Bootstrap said:

After two weeks of pretty steady play as a casual player, I wanted to provide feedback on my game play experience thus far.  I know everyone has a different style of play and time to commit.  These are just my opinions after two weeks.

 

1.  Aging in the game is a great concept, but current aging mechanics are to accelerated.

2.  Speaking of aging, the concept of having a Fountain of Youth (FOY) is great.  And, having obstacles or challenges in place to make it a little more difficult to reach the FOY are great, but the current obstacles are way to numerous and way to powerful.  In my opinion, these obstacles don't encourage groups to ban together to eliminate them in order to reach the FOY, they simply encourage naked suicide runs so that you don't lose any of your gear.

3.  The absence of "land claim" limits encourages companies to grab as much land as they can, sometimes whole islands, leaving very little room for individual or smaller companies to claim land.

4.  Wild animals that attack are not scaled for their level.  A level 1 cobra can kill my character in just a few strikes, the same as a level 100+ cobra.

5.  The presence of wild animals that attack are way to frequent and way to numerous.  I do like the concept of wild animals that occassionally attack, that's real life, right?!  But not as frequently, in as many numbers, and as overpowered as there is currently.

6.  No effective, if any, process currently setup to deal with major griefers in the game.  I've only experienced what I would consider mid-level griefing on the PVE servers with an individual raft/buoy/ship blocking some of our areas; however, I have been reading the multitude of forum posts discussing what some Chinese companies have been doing to cause major grief on the PVE servers.  As far as I can see, there has been no resolution by the game developers on these issues.

7.  Day/night cycle occurs way to fast.  I would slow it down.

8.  Weather effects cycle way to fast.  And are so erratic.  They don't have to be totally realistic; however, when you are freezing to death in a heat wave, something isn't right.

 

These are just a few of the issues that I have with the game as it is currently coded.  I simply want to give the developers my casual player impressions of the game after a couple of weeks gameplay.  That being said, I am thoroughly enjoying the game overall.  I am anxious to see how the developers react to the positive and negative feedback that they have received thus far, and especially anxious to see how they handle all the griefers on the PVE servers.  The style of griefing that is occurring presently has all but killed other PVE games before.

 

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 

1 minute ago, Skyroguen said:

One advantage of a gold metric is that companies will be raiding territory more than trying to steal territory. it also provide a reason to send diver down to wrecks to get the booty. not just for salvage.

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.

5 minutes ago, boomervoncannon said:

If GrapeCard™ chooses to define Top Companies in their game by who controls the most land, that is their perogative. Top companies is inherently subjective, not objective, therefore ANY definition of who is a top company will also be subjective. Convince me that a different metric would be better and you've got my vote, but right now I'm not seeing strong arguments for any other metric, just arguments that this metric isn't good.  Since those arguments are subjective, you've got to make a case for something better if you want to convince other players, to say nothing of Wildshot™. Game developers as a rule tend to be disinclined to take seriously complaints about systems which aren't game breaking that don't offer an alternative and a compelling argument for the alternative.

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.

4 minutes ago, boomervoncannon said:

You haven't convinced me that the system is a problem, only that you don't like it. I would be perfectly fine with changing the title of the system to "land owned" because that would be a more accurate description of what it measures, but I have seen no compelling argument that the present system is somehow inherently flawed as a metric. It's implications are false only if you subjectively don't believe that land controlled is a useful way to measure who is on top, and in a game world with finite land, controlling land might not be your preferred way to measure such things, but I would bet dollars to donuts it's perfectly fine for plenty of people.

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"

9 minutes ago, boomervoncannon said:

I can appreciate where you are coming from however...while your post criticizes the present system, it offers no useful or meaningful alternative. You complain about a system which is a pretty standard and commonly used sort of metric in games like these, provide reasonably useful subjective arguments for why evaluating things in a different way *might* be a better idea, although it tends to be predicated on the subtext that you think your company should be recognized  for being superior, yet you offer no suggestion yourself for how superior might be defined or measured. 

Measuring who controls the greatest amount of territory might not be your preferred method, but it is not "totally ridiculous" to most people. Totally ridiculous would be rating top companies by which company owns the most tamed rabbits, or has collectively slaughtered the most fish. To me, the system is less unreasonable than say, someone coming onto the forums, complaining about a straightforward system that measures things in an objective way, then rather than offer an alternative, putting it on the developers to come up with something better (because they clearly don't have anything more important to do right now than rethink metric systems so they don't bruise certain players egos just by not recognizing them for being awesome) or calling for said system to be scrapped. To me this amounts to whinging.

If you have a realistic suggestion for a system which you think would be better and solid arguments for why, then I am all ears. Until then, your post sounds a lot like Jamaica complaining that no one takes their bobsledding team seriously just because they don't actually win any races.

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.

1 hour ago, Skyroguen said:

It's a pirate game. the only real measure of a company should be GOLD.

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.

19 hours ago, Sevas said:

Just a thought how about a progressive 1-10% buff if you stay alive for X period of time so that not killing yourself has a benefit.

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

3 minutes ago, Percieval said:

Yes but those things can be exploited. Just make another company, give them a lot of stone structures and start kiting. 1 player company can be on the top of the list. 

Then don't use structures as a metric.

5 minutes ago, Thor Ragnarock said:

I agree, not sure what metric is best for this though. Could even just have multiple Top 10 metrics. Top 10 Land, Top 10 Players, Top 10 tames, etc etc could probably track lots of metrics like this.

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.

4 minutes ago, LSG said:

I would honestly like to see the sea claims removed and only have land claims. 

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.

2 hours ago, krazmuze said:

Having an end game 'raid' happen every month regardless of character level is beyond dumb.   Tie this fountain of youth mechanic to your character level and not a real time clock.      Lvl 35 and I am 90yrs old?    All because I do not play every day for eight hours for the last month to get to max level? 

 

(Yes I know it is actually a naked sloop spam (re)run, lets pretend they will actually make it the real end game raid it should be)

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.

34 minutes ago, mndfreeze said:

I like the aging system.  I hope they expand further on the mechanic.  Once the ruins get sorted out (which they will) then it will be a fun little goal and reason to go explore places.

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.

1 minute ago, Stabby said:

... but this going to the Golden Ruins thing is bullshit. I refuse. If you delete my character I will leave the game forever. But I am not doing this Fountain of Youth at the Golden Ruins thing. 

Why do you like it? 

Please explain how this is possible.

3 minutes ago, Nox said:

Here's my diary of getting to the fountain of youth - 

Day 1: try to find it.  make three different newb sloops, sail to three different islands where it's supposed to be.  9 hours of play time.  (did some other random stuff in the middle, got distracted, met a bunch of people)

Day 2: found C6, tried to rush in, cave full of bats, tigers on land, alligators in water.  Servers restart, magic pixels go away.  Move sloop with swivels to beach on C6 to help other people get to shore by killing crocs.

Day 3: Try to find fountain.  Spend some time on C6 - wiping out beach trash with swivels.  While I am elsewhere, Some superfriends tryhard grind peon guild destroys it with cannons.  Mafia?  Whatever doesn't matter.   No good deed goes unpunished. 
Hear that fountain is in o7.  make a sloop, go there, DDay on the beaches of normandy with my semi-competitive horde of naked runners.

Made it in, then logged out to run my lady's character in and something busted both of our beds at the same time - assuming mob damage and not picking because they both popped in the same second.  So now I am young and spry and she's still an old pickle.

Total effort - 3 days of nonstop effort.  Probably 22 hours of play.

 

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

20 hours ago, Adfax said:

So, it turns out they thought they'd make the age mechanic worse, instead of better.. Great.

Now you not longer have the option to look young whenever you want, you can only drink from the fountain at 90.. 

I sometimes think they're purposely trying to kill their own game.

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.

On 1/20/2019 at 10:58 PM, vaylain said:

Age system does not have a place in this kind of game. This game is not about realism clearly otherwise we'd have to watch our character sleep for many hours, take craps, jerk off, go crazy from lack of social interactions, and all other real-world nuances we take for granted in a video game but that is just the case, we play video games to get away from real life. We don't need this punishing and monotonous aspect of the game and already we have to endure the annoying vitamin deficiency crap.

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.

4 hours ago, MagicPuncher said:

I like the concept, it's just way too fast. My guy has aged 80 years in a month. I feel like that's about 10x too fast. If I had to guess I would say that they have sped it up for testing purposes. After all, that's what we are doing-- Testing the game.

Fast or slow, it would still be an annoyance. As someone else pointed out, the problem isn't how often you have to deal with it, but the task to deal with it itself.