Uueerdo

...or they make it so the recipe takes either raw or cooked meat. I mean the only things I know of IRL that take raw meant are things like steak tartar and sushi.... which you don't really cook to begin with.

Fair enough, I think at one time or another we've all thought we worded things better than we actually did. Though I think running out of content at the start of a two year early access phase is a bit more understandable and symptom of the phase, where a large portion of relatively new players being unable to access the content that is there is more due to the current design.

Metaphors don't have to be exact, and I'm not sure where you got the idea I was confusing Atlas with real life; I just think it is odd you think the plight of people who have run out of content is greater than that of the people that can't experience it because the former is sitting on the resources (land and actual resources) the latter actually needs to even experience the content in the first place.

Seemed to me he was saying was that he feels sorrier for the players who got in on the land rush, built up, and ran through the content (and are now sitting around occupying land they have no need for) than he does for the landless players who have a hard time even reaching the content there is because there is barely any land to even stage themselves from.

Maybe I am misreading, but I can't help but feel like this is like saying "but what about the plight of millionaires."

Yeah, or a separate order/whistle for each main direction, like "fire port" and "fire starboard", that tells the current group to find and use cannons appropriately directed.

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it sounds to me like you are giving instructions for splitting control of 6 crew members, rather than toggling where the same 3 crew members are assigned.

In this topic, the only ones mentioning solo players and Galleons besides you are saying they'd have to hire a massive npc crew (if they could even obtain such a ship), or saying solo players generally wouldn't be interested in galleons; and the only mention of Galleons in the Captian's Log the OP was referring to was that it would not be damaged by smaller ships colliding with it.

What, in what the OP was responding to, suggested giving solo players the equivalent of Eve Titan-class ships? Yeah, bad solo players! bad! bad! Group identity is all. Personal accomplishments matter not, it is achieving the group's goals that matter. /sarcasm The funny thing about that "nobody" sentiment is that many solo players avoid joining large groups to specifically avoid becoming a nobody.

You mean that is not normal?

The simple fix, which I doubt they'll do (because it is simple), would be to put a delay on when the decay starts. I.E. Spend an hour or two in freeport with no decay, but have it start (and accelerate) the longer a ship has stayed. Another option would be to tie decay rate to a ship's proximity to a freeport island and make the dinghy (or a small, rowed "cargo" ship) immune (or less affected).

...maybe we'll just have to follow a prospective mate around and feed them berries?

Exactly how much of the map should a player have to explore to find a place to make a home base no bigger than 3 flags?

Yeah, maybe they put more weight (pun not originally intended) into the possibility of no-sail abuse; I disregarded it because it would actually require the would be harassers to stick around, and not be able to jump quickly from ship to ship to entertain themselves watching the world burn. I doubt the people that use this tactic have the kind of patience or attention span required for significant abuse of a no-sail sit in. ...though I am not sure, can you drag sleeping players in PVE? (Though even then they could just make non-allied sleepers fall through the boat.)

I just didn't see a reason to. My issue with the original idea was the immunity, amending the immunity out brings the possibility of a balanced new merchant ship classification. i.e. I didn't quote that part because I agree to it to some degree.

I was saying I don't understand how it would be easier function WeightCheck() if pve && anchored then return else if overweight then sink return could not have been harder than a special bubble.

Yeah, I'm not a PVPer myself either. I meant the idea of a ship immune to attack would be out of place and subject to all manner of abuses in PVP. Presuming "good", non-murderhobo, PVP just imagine the possible abuse if one company were trying blockade another; or pulls up to their enemy's front door in a "merchant ship" full of snipers.

I'm still wondering how implementing this special bubble was easier than just making anchored ships not check weight limits. The only thing I can think is maybe the bubble logs the "flies" caught in it, so they could identify clusters making sinking attempts... but that would assume they were actually considering punishing the abusers in some way,

The (fortunately few) server crashes, updates, and restarts I've had to deal with while playing have usually only rolled me back a few minutes. However, if the OP is talking about the rollback earlier today, there was no save before because the purpose was to rollback to an earlier save point specifically to wipe the possible effects of a recent exploit/breach.

I can understand to a certain degree from that point of view. With the way the SotD are now, it is relatively trivial to avoid them with minimal effort once you get the hang of sailing; but I would hope their current behavior is just a placeholder waiting to be replaced by a more elaborate one. Since you already referenced SotD, "not attacked by other ships" right now pretty much implies a PVP environment where this kind of thing would be very out of place.

So you're saying you want a fast travel, immortal ship mode?

No, I say nothing of the sort about it influencing people, you were the one entertaining that notion and suggesting that beating repeatedly is not more inhumane than sedation. I am also not saying it's immoral to torture a simulated animal in a game; I am just saying it is something I am averse to doing, and that I have to wonder about anyone that would actually enjoy such a simulation.

I am not saying either is good; reality/morality is not black and white, and humans and animals are not the same. Neither drugging nor attacking are ok in a real world sense, but there is a thing called suspension of disbelief, where people like to immerse themselves into a story or game. I would argue that attacking (repeatedly) is worse than drugging, and while suspension of disbelief can tolerate the latter, the former is just too contrary to the nature of many players and/or visceral to be looked past and still enjoy the game. "since it's game anything goes" is really completely meaningless... hey, since it's game, why don't the let us skin puppies alive, complete with realistic anatomy, bleeding, and yelping?.. I mean, it's just a game, right? ..and if that's ok, we should be able to do the same to children in the game, right?

Haha, yeah, I am definitely not saying it is ideal or likely. Seemed like you were suggesting a single person should be able to grow a corp like that on their own; if that was not your intent, I apologize. LaiTash brought up a good point though. it's saying something that a game is less nurturing than Eve Online.

So you're saying roofies is no better than beating to within an inch of death repeatedly? Don't get me wrong, I think it is a nice feature that they can attack the would be tamer to a limited degree while being fed. It just seems needlessly cruel to me, and a recipe for an animal that would turn on you the moment you dropped your guard, to require repeated beatings like it currently does.