ikarirain

After sailing around a bit, I managed to find another good example of extreme foundation spam, and likely some cheating involved, since you'll notice right away how 100% perfectly aligned every foundation is (though I suppose it IS possible to do it manually). Stuff like this is why I would clearly prefer microphobe's talk of binding the repair building only to connected buildings. This shot was taken on the largest island in D7, and nearly the entire island is covered.

The PvE statement DOES change that, because it would mean PvE CAN allow destruction past 12 hours, which goes beyond your response. His question did not specify PvP or PvE, and you only gave him half an answer, the half that was guaranteed for PvP. That's why I say these things should be completely quoted, because a quote taken out of context can easily be made to appear as something that it isn't. I understand completely that some people will repost half a book (an exaggeration) as a quote with only 1-2 sentences of their own, and I do agree that it's annoying... But not including all of the information related to a question is nearly as bad as giving the wrong answer, because it makes it appear as though the incomplete answer is complete. There's always going to be griefing in a game like this, unfortunately. You really can't get around it. There are some MMO's out there that can effectively separate PvP from PvE in a way where greifing is not possible but... they're based on entirely different game mechanics that allow for that ease of separation. Atlas, Ark, and most other sandbox survival games just simply can't achieve mechanics that eliminate griefing altogether. All we can hope for is a system that adequately prevents the worst forms.

If you're going to quote a bullet point from the Captains Log, please, at least quote the whole thing. For PvE (which some people are confused about) the timer may be extended, since you can't really destroy anything via pickaxe or cannon afterwards. Claim owners will be able to demolish structures (via the pinwheel) on their settlements temporarily as long as the structure has been placed within the last 12 hours. After the 12 hour period has passed, they will not be able to demolish the structures using the pinwheel, and must manually destroy it. Claim owners can do this outside of raid hours or warlike. This exists as an anti-griefing mechanism. On PvE servers, we may extend the time beyond 12 hours as players will not have the option to destroy via PVP.

Its just a lack of trust. People assume every island owner is going to be a dictator and steal whatever they want and destroy peoples stuff on a whim. It couldn't be farther from the truth. Most people I've dealt with in the game are actually quite friendly and responsible. And, the truth is, a good island owner knows they need people settling on the island to help reduce the cost of claim upkeep. Its in the owners best interest to maintain good relations with the people on their island, or else they'll end up shouldering a much larger (and unsustainable) upkeep cost. A single person might be able to claim an island, but a single person won't be able to hold it without help. That said, dictators will lose favor, and thus population, while those who cannot stand the dictator will move to better islands with better owners, and those islands will flourish and prosper as a result. For those with trust issues, though, a good piece of advice is to keep the majority of your most valued possessions on your boats.

I don't mind the odd builds, even if they stand out, but I do understand the appeal to realism. I've honestly preferred broadsiders to fore/aft guns. Not only can you fit more cannons pointing to either side, but its far more useful as a defensive measure. If you're a broadsider built for combat, then a forecannon ship is literally sailing straight at you in order to fire their guns, which not only keeps them in range of your guns, but makes them an easy target for your cannons. You can easily add tons of armor to the sides of a ship, but it's far harder to armor the bow or stern. Using concentrated NPC auto-fire (right clicking on the enemy) you can focus the entirety of your firepower on their nearly unprotected bow while they're bouncing shots around your armor. However, the topic here is about how to make ships a bit more realistic in design, and honestly, the easiest way to do it would be to auto group the cannons behind the scenes in a manner different to the current auto-grouping function, then put a percentage limit on fore/aft cannon groups. I'm sure most people have noticed that when placing cannons, they're auto assigned to a group based on their location. Cannons placed at the front of the ship, regardless of direction, are assigned to "Front Cannons". The behind-the-scenes grouping would function similar, but with different rules. The most simple fix would be to assign the groups based on the cannons orientation. Forward facing cannons, regardless of their position, should be grouped to "Front Cannons". From there, the Left and Right groups should have no limit to how many cannons can be placed, while forward and rear facing cannons are limited to being within a percentage range of cannons already placed on left or right. To explain it more simply with an example, 20% of the total cannons can face forward or backward. This means that if you have 8 cannons on either left or right side, you're able to place 2 cannons facing forward or backward (10 total), and can't place any more until the number of side cannons is increased to 12, allowing for a third front/rear cannon (15 total). In both cases, the front/rear cannons make up 20% or less of the total cannons on board. On the scale of a Galleon, with 52 side cannons in the gunports, you'd be able to put 13 forward or rear cannons (13 being 20% of the total amount of 65), which is far more accurate and realistic to see on a Galleon. With this kind of restriction, you're not limited to how much firepower you can have, and you're not limited to where the cannons can be placed. The only limitation is the orientation of the cannon. Anyways, that's my thought on it. It would solve the issue presented by fore/aft glass-cannon ships, and the same percentage rules 'could' be applied to side cannons for balancing out side-mounted super-shotgun ships (if those are a tremendous issue).

If we're talking about explosive barrels..... These can be fired out of cannons. Honestly, if you have 10-15 cannons loaded with explosive barrels, you'd wreck a galleon in a heartbeat. The only drawback is that you need to be close enough to fire them, since a ship cannons range is reduced to about 1/3 normal range when using explosive barrels. If you can get past that hurdle, then its a piece of cake.

Well, its a stretch to assume he was someone who spammed pillars across entire islands. I didn't see any point where he claimed as much, lol. On the other hand, I've seen limited pillar/foundation spam on lawless that was used as an anti-griefing measure (preventing someone else from surrounding their house and preventing expansion). Even I've used it in limited cases to prevent others from griefing my stuff. For the record, it is entirely possible to build in a location, only for someone to spam pillars as close to you as possible, preventing you from not only expanding, but even adding walls to the outermost edge of your constructions. Using pillars and foundations as an anti-griefing measure is a legitimate tactic. However, when it's abused to cover an island in foundations/pillars (or in one case, flooding the entire island's coast with gates), that's when it becomes a problem. If the repair building has a limited range, that would allow you to build and maintain pillars within that range, that's fine with me. Pillarspamming an island will require so many resources for repair that it'll just be unsustainable. But localized pillarspamming, for the sake of anti-griefing, I'm fine with that. The truth is, though, that any mechanic that can be abused, will be abused. There's always going to be a way to grief someone in Atlas. In a way, the claim system was able to prevent that kind of griefing, but then it became abusable and a tool for griefing on its own.

You underestimate the number of trolls in the game who'd gladly wait around the freeport edge of lawless zones looking for a quick and easy kill, lol. But, I do believe most of the actual PvP will boil down to wars and skirmishes between actual companies. Since you can't actively harm stuff on islands except during war or the raidable hours, there will probably be companies setting up blockades to sink incoming/outgoing ships, blockade runners who try to get past them, mounting tensions which lead to war. The island owners will be heavily responsible for building the defenses on their islands, since non-owner residents cant build any land defenses. The only exception to this is during war or (I'd hope) during raidable hours. Otherwise you're gonna have one company with defenses easily being overwhelmed by another company that simply lands on the opposite side of the island where no defenses exist. The player markets are already confirmed as coming up soon. They've specifically said they can be placed in freeports, and they've said the markets can be taxed by a claim owner when inside a claim, but they haven't explicitly said whether or not these markets can be placed in lawless or unclaimed areas (which I'm hoping for, cause I build my trade posts in lawless on {PvE). The trade routes would be interesting, although I hope they give the option of paying extra for NPC escort ships or something. It'd be cheaper to follow with your own ship as an escort, but the option to pay for an escort isn't a horrible idea either.

Considering lawless borders freeports, it'll make it really interesting for anyone who wants to go get NPCs, lol. Gonna have to sail through lawless to get there, and there'll be PVP hunters everywhere.

I don't think we need to worry about the repair building preventing others from building within its range, otherwise it'd be no different from a claim flag with upkeep. It would be almost identical to the tax bank, and there'd be no point in two structures performing the exact same function.

It would be interesting if they did that, and I'd be all for it since my constructions basically always stay connected (I'd only need one repair building), but... It would be the first implementation of that kind of mechanic, where an object that affects others does its work based on building snap points. They're far more likely to base it off of the mechanics they already have with the mess hall, feeding trough, and ship resource box, where each one has a limited range of influence. Don't get me wrong though. While the circumstances don't really favor it, I would far more prefer your version. For people like me, it would be far more efficient to only need one building.

Personally, I would love to see the option of choosing what objects and structures to repair. It would be nice to be able to repair the buildings of allies who are built nearby. If they're building that close, then its beneficial to both, similar to how your crew and animals can feed from an ally's mess table and feeding trough. But the one option I'd love to see, is being able to repair boats with these buildings, and choosing whether to repair company-only, company and allies, or all boats. I like to run trade posts, and having a complementary repair dock for visitors is an idea I'd be able to stand behind. But, seeing as how this is the first implementation of the repair building, I'm going to assume it'll only work for your own structures, not boats, and probably be quite limited in range.

I'm only speculating. But there's no reason for them to block off a learnable blueprint. Based on my assumptions after watching the stream, my guess is that it will be available for use in both PvP and PvE, in lawless and claimable zones. The only difference is that in PvP, the claim system would make the repair building useless. You 'could' build it, but it's not going to help anything since the tax building would stop decay altogether. Can't repair what doesn't break, after all.

The decay system means exactly as you've assumed. Every single placeable piece, whether utility or building part, will lose durability over time. But, you won't need to repair every single piece one at a time. Instead, you get an auto-repair building that, when stocked with repair materials, will keep everything in range repaired. This is how it's going to work in PvE, anyways. I would assume that it will work the same way in PvP, however, I believe that the claim system prevents decay in exchange for claim upkeep, which will consume resources in the tax bank based on the island size and the number of companies settled on the island. That negates the need for a repair building, but only on claimed islands.

I've got a Dinghy that's been parked next to my place for over a month and a half, and I had allies who left a brig behind near a ship resource chest that was built on land. The timer on the chest (30 days) expired cause no one logged in to refresh it, but the brig is still there and untouchable. There is no decay at all, and no instant sinking after a period of time. Abandoned ships are permanent fixtures now, unless you can kite a cyclone into them multiple times.