Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


user1 last won the day on December 24 2019

user1 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

49 Excellent

About user1

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. user1

    Keeping people prisoner.

    Good game design
  2. user1

    Offline protection

    Bite me So. You say there is a way, but fail to provide any evidence that this claim was true. You are literally full of shit. I could totally prove it to you right here and now, but i can't be bothered and it should be obvious for everyone to see. Don't worry, because i actually don't complain that they are able to fight back. As long as i am in the vicinity, they obviously can, and should. But if i manage to escape without being detected, the game should probably not tell them who did it. Right. Because fairness obviously has no place in a game. I would also complain if a sports team were allowed to have 10 times as many players on the field as their opponent. Also, why do you insist on letting teams of 50 people compete vs soloists in the first place? Why do you need to boost your tiny, fragile ego by partaking in an activity where the outcome is already decided from the very beginning, by you being 50 people beating up a single person? Would you find it equally as fun if you were on the other side? There is nothing wrong with asymmetric PvP, but you can do it correctly (as in Eve online for example) or you can do it in a profoundly stupid way, such as in Atlas. I'm far ahead of you and stopped playing this utter piece of garbage months ago. Also, this bunch of idiots company won't ever see another cent from me. I bought a game. Admittedly a game in EA, but still. Instead i got a piece of shit. Either that, or there is another reason why players are deeply unsatisfied with this game. Probably because they agree that the balance is complete bollocks. You seem to be undere the woefully wrong impression that "punishment" in this regard was a bad thing. You probably assume that whoever gets "punished" in this way is meant to lose. In reality, this is not true. Being "punished" only means that you don't get a default win handed to you just because you brought 2 people more than your opponent. Think "diminishing returns", instead of "the bigger one must die". I do not ask for drawbacks for companies larger than *MINE*! I ask for company size to not be the single most important factor in deciding the outcome of any conflict. I ask for diminishing returns, which is a concept that is completely absent from this game. The way things are right now, it is only "more fair", to use your retarded way of putting it, for YOU. Which you regard as being totally better than being more fair for anyone else. I get it. You're the one who profits most from the status quo. How dare anyone demand a change? And i once did care for the game. But not often have i been as deeply disappointed by anything as i've been by this game.
  3. user1

    Offline protection

    Seriously? Counter strike? Yeah, who doesn't remember all the fun we had in CS in a 5 vs 50 match. Also, you completely ignore the complete and utter lack of counters to being large in this game. How do you beat the ones who are being large? (Hint: There are ZERO ways to do it right now, except for being even larger) If someone solo wrecks some of your properties, there isn't even a way to go into hiding, because the game tells you who did it. Even if you succeed in doing damage to them, there is no way to avoid the inevitable retaliation. So you can't even employ guerilla tactics in order to compensate being smaller in numbers, not even a little. The whole game just blatantly favors the ones who are stronger in numbers, that is all. And if i need a group of 50 people to even begin playing this utter piece of garbage, then i'm out. And i'm not going to be the only one. In fact, i fully expect the vast majority of players to turn their backs on a game that clearly doesn't want them to play. And the total player count fucking shows it. If there is a REWARD in something (ANY!!! reward at all), there should be a RISK associated with it. Having 50 people in your corp clearly is an advantage in and of itself, so why the flying fuck isn't there ANY risk attached?! This is basic game design 101. You can have a bigger gun, which will one shot kill someone, but it will have slower reload time, to the point where your DPS is less than with the standard weapon. You can also have a fast firing pistol, which will do less damage per shot, but will fire so fast that it has higher DPS, but it is not dealing all its damage upfront, but over a time period instead, so that the victim could regenerate some health. None of these options would drastically change your total time to kill, because you do not get a universal advantage without any drawbacks. What is the fucking drawback to having 50 people? Why are you so opposed to the idea of making the game a little more fair, concentrating more on individual player skill instead of just having nothing but the raw numbers decide each and every single battle? Then again, i should probably be thankful that this shithole of a game is binding all the fucktards who would otherwise pester other games i still care to play with their repulsive presence.
  4. user1

    Offline protection

    Ah. The obligatory "i found 50 sick, sociopathic wankers who enjoy griefing other people the same as i do, and i fail to see the fucking problem" post. A Classic! So if someone gathered enough bullies to come by your house and beat you up every night when you are asleep, you'd be fine with that? I mean.. They'd outnumber you easily, and given enough combat proficiency, you would never be able to hurt any of them back, so that should be A-OK in your book, right? I'm sure not being able to have any fun is a sacrifice you'd be more than happy to make, knowing it will benefit the rest of us so greatly.
  5. user1

    Offline protection

    Well. Since you asked: If he logged out and there was a 5 minute period where his ship can still be attacked while being driverless, you could go on and win that fight that was already happening. There would be no fucking need to have a bogging 9hr period where you could search the whole fucking atlas for him, destroy all of his ships, buildings, tames and remove the very last remains which ever indicated his existence before he even knew there was any threat. Offline PvP is NOT PvP!!! It is asshole vs someone who has no idea that he even was in a fight, and who has no means to fight back because he isn't present. Aka a shitty game for shitty people. Peace out
  6. user1

    opinions Your Ideas For Atlas!

    I think they should drop the whole ships and sailing thing and focus exclusively on bears.
  7. What does this even have to do with the specific points that OP addressed in his post?! The real question here is: Why the fuck does this stupid pile of bugs even show the press E to feed hint when it is impossible to do so? The players can be as smart or as dumb as they want, there is no magical threshold where this will only happen to you if you're less intelligent than that. This bullshit exists only because of the almost amazing inability of the developers. Do you think it was Jeremy who gave us the borked up shader code that produces chunky blocks of visual artifacts around the sails when you're surrounded by fog, too? The whole project as such is displaying massive amounts of technical inaptitude.
  8. user1

    Why can't you fix your game... PLEASE!

    I was complaining because i paid for a game with pirates but i only received a pile of trash with bears. I was complaining because i paid for a game based on UE4 but i only got an underperforming heap of bugs that made the game run with <40 fps in FHD on an RTX 2080. (Seriously, HOW THE FUCK DID THEY DO THAT?) I was complaining because i paid for a PVP enabled game but i only got an offline raid simulator where the bigger corp always wins and the bigger ship is always better and literally everything is one dimensional. I had high hopes when i learned that there was a new chief game designer assigned, but everything i have read about the game ever since failed to raise any desire in me to have another look at it again.
  9. user1

    PLEASE Don't forget Us Single players

    1. You mean you even fail to realize that "not forgetting about us single players" would obviously mean having people at grapeshot working on single player content? Of course "not forgetting" about a thing does mean spending money on it. 2. OP was talking about exactly that: single player mode. He even explicitly stated that he is not interested in MO or co-op content, so no, this is not about playing solo in a multiplayer network environment. I think you accusing me of having comprehension issues can easily be attributed to projection from your side. Just to make this clear so you won't get it all wrong yet again: I do not want grapeshot to spend any manpower at working on single player content, as long as there still are serious multiplayer issues. This is because the game has been designed, advertised and conceived as primarily MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER and i do not want it to become some twisted, contorted chimera that it wasn't ever meant to be. Also, i do not wish there to be yet another incentive for players to leave multiplayer, and it doesn't make a fucking difference to me whether they leave for good or just switch to single player, because the measurable outcome is the same: They're gone. Smartass
  10. user1

    PLEASE Don't forget Us Single players

    So. You're the one who bought an MMO for the single player content. But i am the one with comprehension issues? Sure thing, buddy. And to top it off you even demand resources be spent on that bullshit. I wish there was a single player earth for you to indefinitely stay on.
  11. user1

    PLEASE Don't forget Us Single players

    It seems there has been some confusion on your side as to what kind of game this is, so please allow me to provide some clarity: This is an MMO. That stands for MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE. None of these words suggests in any way, shape or form that there even was a single player mode, and it was a totally boneheaded move by the devs to even create it. And now that you entered the game on false premises, you demand things stay in the tragically awful state they're in right now? I can do that, too. Please, devs, don't forget those of us who like that the game is no fun. Please keep it being no fun in the future. I don't care that the original approach was to make it fun, i like the current state better, where everyone is fighting about trivialities. When i bought the game it was an unbearable atrocity. That's what i paid for and i wanna keep it that way. Please don't waste any funding to have people working on it to make it any less unfun. Thank you.
  12. user1

    Atlas and steam charts

    1. To you. Gomez and his wife are having fun after 1000 hours. Is it your position that they aren’t having fun, or that they shouldn’t be having fun? I can't reliably tell whether other people are having fun. I definitely don't. I believe them when they say they're having fun and there is nothing wrong with that. That still doesn't miraculously make me have fun, though. 2. No signs of improvement is overblown hyperbole to anyone who has actually followed the patch notes. Say you have no faith in the direction of the design, or that’s gone from bad to worse, but your statement heavily implies they’ve just let the game sit there with no effort at refinement. Numerous technical improvements have been made and new content has been added. You don’t have to like these things or consider them sufficient, but on its face the statement comes across as bile for the sake of bile. Signs of change, yes. Plenty, actually. Improvements? Not so much. 3. No argument there. This has been stilted since day one and giving large clans exclusive chat access to devs that other layers don’t have isn’t likely to correct it. Right 4. It is entirely possible to ignore tames. The amount of development resources so far put into land based tames for a supposedly sailing oriented game doesn’t make much sense to me, but no one is making you use them. Ok, then. Do a purple treasure map without using tames. Let us know how that went. 5. It’s funny that you mention fog and doldrums because I feel like I experience noticeably less of both of these than I did during the early days. Yes you want them both to go away completely, I get that, but if any developer tries to make his game by doing only what his players want, he’ll never get anywhere because players want contradictory things. There’s also a well known phenomenon where players want something made easier, then when it’s made easier the challenge is gone and they get bored. So there’s a balance needed there that isn’t easy to achieve. Is GrapeCard doing a good job finding that balance? Who knows, but Jat’s involvement of late here on the forums directly contradicts your assertion. It is still noticeable to the point of driving me up the walls. I don't care if they tuned it down a notch. I am not talking about notches. Turn that shit down to 10% of what it currently is. 6. What I said about entertainment per hour applies to the industry overall, not Atlas specifically, and any fair reading of my post would understand that. You ignored it because you gave an Atlas specific answer. There is a reason people over the age of 5 don’t play with blocks , they don’t find it entertaining. Within any industry there are going to be some failures. If Atlas turns out to be one of those, so be it, but it does not change the fundamental point about MMO’s overall. "I play polo and i am having a hard time to understand why you find playing tennis expensive". If people want to compare gaming with a visit to the movies to prove how cheap gaming is in comparison, it is adequate to compare it to online streaming to show how expensive it is in comparison. 7. I’m not gonna argue that Atlas needs more content that isn’t time sinks, that’s something I’m in complete agreement with, but that is tempered by the knowledge that all MMO’s have significant time sinks because players can always chew through content far faster than any development team can create, refine and test it. *Having time sinks *Having TOO MANY time sinks There is a noticeable difference there Also, if they actually enabled emergent gameplay (like, for example.. start with players being able to repair their allies ships) or self sustaining PvP (by not letting the loser of a war become damaged beyond recovery), this would be far less of a problem. 8. Clearly you’re very salty. I’m not gonna ask why you’d continue to play a game you don’t like, I’m gonna ask why you’d continue to post to a forum for a game you’ve clearly decided is hopeless. Given that there is clear proof in the form of Gomez that some people are enjoying it, not everyone agrees with your point of view completely, so how would you define what you’re currently doing as anything besides intentional toxicity? Because if i kept silent about the things they do that i hate, they wouldn't know how pissed i actually am.
  13. user1

    Atlas and steam charts

    The game is absolute and utter garbage. We've watched this train wreck for 8 months now and there are no signs of improvement. The balance is dominated by blatant favoritism towards larger companies. The majority of your play time has more to do with taming than with ships. Player wishes are outright ignored (How do you like the fog and doldrums so far?) And if you argue that you would get more hours of entertainment for a cheaper price than with watching a movie, i'd recommend you buy some wooden construction blocks. They might not be the most flamboyant form of entertainment, but the hrs/$ ratio is nearly unbeatable. For 15€ a month me and a couple friends can watch netflix 24/7, and that's what you should compare this to. You provide your own seating, hardware and snacks, so you can't really compare gaming to a night out at the movies, price-wise. That we are even still playing this crap after 1000 of hours can easily be attibuted to the fact that the majority of the playing time consists of time sinks, so after 1000 hours we're still nowhere near getting any of the shit done which we had planned. Except for the fuckers who cheated their way to level 100 and were allowed to stay there, while many of us are still struggling to even get there to this day.
  14. user1

    Atlas and steam charts

  15. user1

    Atlas and steam charts

    If they can't be replaced by something non-taming-related, then yes. Even just one would be too much. At least now i know what to expect from the ark company. Apparently, the key point in pirate life seems to be the baby cuddle intervals. It is funny how this important part has been left out of almost every pirate related narrative ever. I guess that was just bad storytelling. Or those just weren't fantasy pirates, only the regular, totally boring kind of pirates. Now if you'd excuse me, i have to go collect some fucking berries so my bear won't starve. I'm just kidding. I stopped playing this shit a week ago.