The D Legacy

On 2/1/2019 at 5:21 PM, boomervoncannon said:

I wanted to build a base halfway up one of the tall rock spires common in tropic areas where there was a large ledge. I had to build 5 foundations high in order to get abovevthe point of having non cleanable foliage blowing around inside the structures. This is needlessly cumbersome. If the devs don’t want us to build in these areas they could make them no build. If it’s okay to build then why are there annoying graphical foliage distractions that I can’t get rid of?

you know where they already adressed that issue?? in satisfactory, wich was released at a later date than ATLAS couldnt help but to remember it with a sarcastic grin on my face, if only coffe stain studios would develop a survival game, oh boi i would be happy

On 8/1/2019 at 11:57 PM, Sleepinator2000 said:

You're right. it is 8k to 1.6k. Still the capacity is 4x what the OP is listing. 

oh is it? i gathered info from the forums and discord for an overall idea, will update once i get my own values.

On 8/2/2019 at 12:45 AM, pfg said:

Link this other post about ship speeds, its wrong or your leaving something relevant out. Each crate has a capacity of 8000kg that reduces the ship top speed by a fixed 6.7% (40/6) and a variable weight contribution up to 1600kg for a maximum weight crate. If you have 6 full crates that's 6x8000=48000kg of stuff you are carrying for a weight effect of 6x1600=9600kg. 10000kg (the original 30% weight) + 9600kg=19600kg or a little under 60% weight, not 75% in your example so your already going significantly faster. That's point one, point two is your 75% is actually only moving 75% of 30000kg = 22500-10000kg base weight = 12500kg moved while the crate solution moved a full 48000kg.

@Simonsays095 wrote some really good guides on this, start with this one

and then have a read on the others.

since i see some huge disparity between the information i gathered and what you guys mention i will do a live test on my own and share the results, ty for pointing it out.

On 8/1/2019 at 6:00 PM, Liatni said:

Hey, pirates aint idiots  I mean, They are rumored  the ones that started putting lime in their grog to prevent scurvy first.

*further thought! Maybe the OP is more of a Navy Man or Trader at heart, and you know they are all about those spreadsheet and numbers.

I had not bothered with more than 2 crates myself, I mean.. there is only soo much gathering to be done in a setting for me. I find this thread interesting.

Who doesnt love spreadsheets!!!!!!!????? walk the plank right this moment you dogs!!!!

3 hours ago, boomervoncannon said:

I'm not super familiar with Black Desert Online but most likely it doesn't allow players to build in the non instanced game world. Not many MMO's do that. This is a major factor that makes comparing Black Desert's optimization to Atlas's a very apples to oranges comparison, because it's game world doesn't change at the player's hands. Atlas does.

ah! ok, well not sure how that affects the performance in detail but it the end it boils down to rendering stuff doesnt it? also you can build stuff in fornite afaik but they dont seem to have this performance issues, the difference might be that they were smart enough as to use unreal engine 4 as their graphical engine instead of unreal engine 3 (wich is famous for its performance problems) but who knows.

1 hour ago, Puppies4ever said:

Black Desert Online is a "static" world compared to ATLAS or ARK.

 

srry i dont get what you mean by "static"

15 minutes ago, boomervoncannon said:

I can’t recall if you’ve mentioned playing Ark in the past or not, so forgive me if this is redundant to something you already know. Ark started off being easily the most poorly optimized game I’ve ever played. Over the course of its lengthy EA, it got slowly, incrementally better to the point where those without top of the line hardware could hope to play the game at non minimal settings with decent performance. It came a long way from where it started, but to this day it requires better than average hardware to achieve average performance.

I expect Atlas to follow a similar path. If it is useful info for comparison sake I run a GTX1060 6gb at 1920x1080 res, 32 gigs of Ram and an 8700 series cpu and other than the ping 255 issue my performance is fine.

How long did that took them? (i have never played ark).

imo they kinda started the house from the roof with atlas, they should have never released an early access until they had built an at least half decent product, i do understand the most efficient is to optimize when you have a semi-complete product, but i believe giving priority to customer satisfaction is (specially in this type of cases) a more beneficial move than just waiting for the game to be in a more finished state, even tho people already paid for the game, many will simply never come back when the game is in a somewhat decent state, also it hurts the reputation of early access games overall.

ok but optimization when??? i loged back in after months of having quit just to find my RAM and GPU being literally devoured by ATLAS. i usually play Black Desert Online, anyone familiar with that game knows how high quality the graphics of that game are, yet it consumes only half of what ATLAS does, puting aside all the design flaws of ATLAS, the technical side is simply horrendous, to the point of becoming unplayable at moments if you have anything else open at the same time. no matter how good the new content they release is, if i cant play it smoothly then that content becomes irrelevant.

it all boils down to people wanting to have their own personal space (as expected) because who the hell would want to live under a lord for god sake we are in a pirate game not in a sims MMO

i have already lost count on how many times i have given the same feedback already but here we go:

-Decay system

-Lack of a meaningfull progression

-Content hidden behind groupal activities

-Lack of ingame logic (pirates are forced to live under a feudal lord, submarines fire ballista ammo instead of torpedos, boats can fire torpedos instead of cannon balls, bows have higher DPS than guns, etc)

-Usless skill tree branches (the only reason to go for the weapons skill branch is the carbine since we all know bows have higher DPS and versatility than guns)

-Ship upgrades dont feel meaningfull and are lost upong ship sinking (wich forces you to not use that ship you worked hard for due to high risk low reward situations)

-SotD gold drops are stupidly low wich forces you to do treasures (being forced to do something you might not like doesnt rly feel like the life a pirate would choose)

-Time and effort put in the game doesnt feel rewarding

-Game feels very unfriendly towards solo players (having to stop after each fight to manually repair the ship breaks the immersion)

-Unnecessary nerfs of fun features like guns and gliders

-Exploration is boring, repetitive, tedious and unrewarding

-Sailing is boring, and overly simplistic (no special skills, no cool animations, only fire cannons, fire cannons again, and fire cannons until you fall sleep)

-Earning gold feels meaningless (there is no cool goal to grind gold for in PvE) also not enough variety in ways to obtain gold other than treasure chests (SotDs should drop gold, not fucking people)

-Bows durability is absurdly low (i have to carry at least 3 at all times)

3 hours ago, PeglegTheAngry said:

Are you a developer? Why do you think this going to be a massive change? It's already something that they  could implement in a few minutes by changing ini settings. Alot of you in this thread do not understand development. I have heard goofy things like "having to maintain two codebases"  or a million excuses about how difficult it will be to code said changes.

then go ahead and develop a game, since it so simple, also dont put words in my mouth, did i ever said it would be a massive change??, no, you just made that up to divert the attention from the fact that you ran out of arguments, the only thing i see here is a guy who wants to impose his view on everybody else while not listening at all that everybody in this thread is against your proposal, if you are so fixated on it why dont you open up your own private server mr developer?

On 5/30/2019 at 11:43 PM, Remcott said:

Except that just by placing cargo containers on your ships you get a speed penalty now as well.  If you place the full amount of containers available you get a 40% reduction in speed from what I understand, and that's before anything is in them.  Then you have the normal weight penalties that start kicking in.  Someone did the math in discord.

 

Assuming full following wind;
0 weight, 6 speed, 30% capacity, no crates: 18.4 knots
0 weight, 6 speed, 75% capacity, no crates: 11.0 knots
0 weight, 6 speed, 75% capacity, six crates: 6.6 knots
3 weight, 3 speed, 30% capacity, no crates: 14.7 knots
3 weight, 3 speed, 75% capacity, no crates: 8.8 knots
3 weight, 3 speed, 75% capacity, six crates: 5.3 knots
6 weight, 0 speed, 30% capacity, no crates: 11.0 knots
6 weight, 0 speed, 75% capacity, no crates: 6.6 knots
6 weight, 0 speed, 75% capacity, six crates: 4.0 knots

That means a full cargo run of getting my weight as close to 75% as possible which is the break point of your speed dropping significantly is better without the containers.  Since once I add them to be able to bring more now I'm dropped in speed even further.  Not very useful.  I dont want to travel slower in this game.    

wow, if this numbers are correct and by simply adding the crates you lose 40% speed then thats quite similar to losing 45% of your original weight

0 weight, 6 speed, 30% capacity, no crates: 18.4 knots
0 weight, 6 speed, 75% capacity, no crates: 11.0 knots

0 weight, 6 speed, 30% capacity, six crates: 11.04 knots

since each crate transforms 2 000 kg into 200 kg we are talking about 12 000 kg converted into 1 200 kg for a saved weight of 10 800 Kg in a newly build galleon with 30 000 Kg capacity sacrificing 45% means losing 13 500 Kg wich means you are losing more weight than you are actually saving, and if we consider a level 40 galleon fully focused in weight then losing 45% of 42 000 kg it means losing 18 900 Kg

i just found this info on other post in the forum:

"If you place the full amount of containers available you get a 40% reduction in speed from what I understand, and that's before anything is in them.  Then you have the normal weight penalties that start kicking in."

Assuming full following wind;
0 weight, 6 speed, 30% capacity, no crates: 18.4 knots
0 weight, 6 speed, 75% capacity, no crates: 11.0 knots
0 weight, 6 speed, 75% capacity, six crates: 6.6 knots
3 weight, 3 speed, 30% capacity, no crates: 14.7 knots
3 weight, 3 speed, 75% capacity, no crates: 8.8 knots
3 weight, 3 speed, 75% capacity, six crates: 5.3 knots
6 weight, 0 speed, 30% capacity, no crates: 11.0 knots
6 weight, 0 speed, 75% capacity, no crates: 6.6 knots
6 weight, 0 speed, 75% capacity, six crates: 4.0 knots

based on this info i did some math and if this numbers are correct and by simply adding the crates you lose 40% speed then thats quite similar to losing 45% of your original weight

0 weight, 6 speed, 30% capacity, no crates: 18.4 knots
0 weight, 6 speed, 75% capacity, no crates: 11.0 knots <-----

losing 40% speed is the same as going from 30% weight to 75%

0 weight, 6 speed, 30% capacity, six crates: 11.04 knots <-----

since each crate transforms 2 000 kg into 200 kg we are talking about 12 000 kg converted into 1 200 kg for a saved weight of 10 800 Kg in a newly build galleon with 30 000 Kg capacity sacrificing 45% means losing 13 500 Kg wich means you are losing more weight than you are actually saving, and if we consider a level 40 galleon fully focused in weight then losing 45% of 42 000 kg it means losing 18 900 Kg

if this numbers and the information are correct whats even the point of the crates??

9 hours ago, PeglegTheAngry said:

Right. Well, I'm going to continue to advocate for a merged-platform. Along with its multiple code-bases.

thats fine, you are free to defend your point but to be honest i still fail to see what value would that "merge"add to the game, rather i only see the need of more technical work added to the developers and more potentially annoying situatons if the pvp pve members are not properly separated

12 hours ago, PeglegTheAngry said:

 Wow that... is very entitled of you.

It sounds like you want to play single player.

what part of what he said is entitled?? he is voicing a very logical and example based concern, he sound as if he wants to play with people who has similar affinities as him (game wise) and i dont see whats the problem with that.

24 minutes ago, Egon von Sturmberg said:

Why do you think, playin Pve like we do at the moment isnt possible combined with PvP, which is happening somewhere else in the world?

well i think you need to go deeper into what you mean exactly before giving you a proper answer but if i guessed correctly my answer would be: imagine the people who simply wants to do trade runs getting unwillingly involved into a sea battle as an easy example.

12 hours ago, Jatheish said:

These are things we had actually spoken about today, at least in regards to additional QoL,  taking a look at what mods are doing, and decay timers. I can't say any of it will change in the immediate future but we are certainly looking into these areas.

As for 'to come' in the next Mega Update, so far it'll be what we've revealed thus far in Capts Logs, we can update the notes to include those. Beyond that, we'll be sharing details soon-ish and may even have a roadmap of sorts (no promises )

Jat there is no need to reinvent the wheel, rly, is just a matter of basic psychology, would you keep writing lines of code in a computer that fully resets every time you are afk for more than X minutes? ofc not, why? progress. no one likes to lose their progress, as it symbolizes the time and effort players have put in the game as well as the direction you are moving towards and all of that has an impact in your motivation as a gamer, by implementing a decay system not only the game is chasing away players that could potentially come back to the game if their progress was still there, it also affects the motivation of people who plays the game, because who wants to work towards something when you know your time and effort will all be for naught if you ever decide to quit for a while? imo its an unnecessary feature that adds no value to the game while at the same time has a heavy cost.

Would also like to point out that the game feels very solo player unfriendly, you are supposed to be a pirate yet you have to live under a feudal lord, and to be honest as a solo player who enjoys to play solo (clarification: not to confuse playing solo and playing alone, they are not the same) being forced to join groupal content to unlock game features doesnt feel pirate-ish at all, isnt the very essence of being a pirate all about freedom of choice?

edit: Its funny because just as i had finished writing i loged in the game to spend few hrs doing w/e only to find my small base demolished even tho there was nothing valuable in it, even the fundations were demolished, as if it had never existed, needless to say as a person who values his time this simply means close the game, go play something else.

On 7/27/2019 at 12:56 AM, Egon von Sturmberg said:

I keep this  thread open for your thoughts, but instead of splitting players with single player mode, huge company servers.. small company servers... private servers...Pve...Pvp..and one server for each of the 17 genders, it should be the goal to put them all in one massive online world, which is having diffrent regions with diffrent rules.

have you even considered people who went PvE went there for a reason?

6 hours ago, boomervoncannon said:

If blackwood, single player and non dedicated turn out to be the first step, then they may have already started. If not, they may just be flinging dirt. It is hard to say from where we stand now, but I think the biggest single issue will be figuring out something workable for land ownership and where and how players can build. To date I think that has been the biggest single downfall of the game, and is the thorniest problem that must be solved. Winter Thorne has put forward a very simple straightfoward solution that makes sense to me, but I guess we'll see. 

well in my personal opinion the bigges issues have been 2

A) Lack of logic, they offered the life of a pirate yet we are you have to live in a feudal system, they introduce torpedos wich cannot be shot from the submarine but from the boat (i actually had to read the patch notes 3 times because i couldnt believe it), you are supposed to be a pirate but to unlock content you are forced to join groupal activities. the very essence of being a pirate is freedom essence that in this game is forcefully twisted in the exact opposite direction.

B) Lack of the most basic and essencial sense of investment, many people that plays MMOs doesnt do it as in "lets go YOLO mode" people likes to invest their time into something tangible, something that if real life forces you to quit for a while you can always come back to, actually 99% of the times i have come back to a game was because the time and effort i had previously invested was still there, in this game quitting 2 weeks can literally cause you to lose 90% of your hard earned progress (ships, buildings, designs, gold, etc)

in conclusion, as a solo PvE player, i find it very hard to find a reason to keep playing the game or even a reason to come back.

9 hours ago, boomervoncannon said:

"Long is the road and hard is the way that out of hell leads up to heaven." - Paradise Lost

would be wise to start building that road already wouldnt it?

On 7/30/2019 at 7:50 AM, PeglegTheAngry said:

 

All I want... is some good bears. Ive had to kill the same Alpha lion THREE times today. Yes it died, yes a new one took it's place. I keep losing ALL of my progress to it; since all of my progress hinges on a bear.  This is one of the many reasons this game is dying. I'm ready to call it quits myself. This deluge of un-fun  bullshit makes me want to scream.

Every time I find a high level tame, it dies in some horrible and spectacular way. Is there a dev watching me or something?

Welcome to ATLAS, if you expect to have some progress here, well... good luck, my suggestion? move on to another game just as 90% of the initial population did. (btw if you are into taming shit there is a new MMO coming wich based on that, is called "Astellia", closed beta just happened next is the open beta later this year.

1 hour ago, DocOlds said:

You can't just throw unrelated crap on something and call it progress.  Subs, torpedos, nonsense tames, they are crap that now needs time to clean off and will always leave a stain.

i  rly had a laught when they said the submarine could not use torpedos but the ship could, like WTF!? just like when they introduced a feudal system in a pirate MMO, there is no logic in this game at all

13 hours ago, Jack Shandy said:

What people pay for the priveledge to spend 1k hours doing something they dislike!!!

You are right, I too wish this mentality would die out.

people should start doing things they enjoy.

to love or hate someting you have to know it right? and to know something you have to invest time in it right? well probably for your surprise there is people who is more stubborn than others, or simply dont have anything else to play that fits their needs at that moment in time, or dont want to give up so easily on the game, i myself invested 700 hrs in this game, after exploring all of its content i decided i didnt like where the game was going and quit, the amount of played time can be indicative of several things, like the ones i mentioned above, so i am sorry but you are mistaken, time invested and hate/love for the game might have correlation but correlation is not causation.

12 hours ago, zottel said:

Hello there Veteran Pirates, Forum bookworms,newbies And Realist ( honestly he is his own category,no offense mate  ) We all know Grapeshot did alot of Bullshit at the Release And it was And still is your right to react to it. But it seems that many People Who really enjoy this game forgot about something really Important imo And that is actually the negativ Review on Steam And other platforms. I wont ask People to just Change it if they still Dont like the Game, but as many others you might have forgotten to Change it into something positive. Potential Players may or may Not Play because of your Review. There are Tons of Players who have over 1k hours in this game And i Dont think anyone spends 1k hours on a Game  he does Not like. Even if its only one Person reading this And changing his Review it is a Start. We all have high hopes And Maybe its time for us to give Other Players the Chance to enjoy this game And also bring some Motivation to our Grapeshot guys

if i could i would downvote again, something like square downvote or super-downvote would suit my needs just wonderfully, developers are beng faithfull to their view of the game wich is fine, but they are utterly failing to realise what people want, its has being said over and over and over, so many times that i will not even waste my energy explaining to you why this is happening since i have alreayd done it  several times in the past, and simply nothing changes, not even one of the critical design flaws of the game has been reworked into someting acceptable, the game has hit an all time low 2.8k players on steam, and is slowly but steadily losing players everyday, yet this ship is not changing its course, and dont get me wrong, i dont hate the game, if anything i am sad about such a wonderfull project going down the drain, but this people simply fails to understand the most basic psychology patterns and needs of an average gamer, its like having your house wife try to repair your car, is not lack of will but lack of insight. so no, i will not change my steam vote to drag more people into this sinking ship.

optimization when? getting rid of the decay system when? access to end game content for solo players when?? meaningfull prgression system when?

does any of it sounds familiar??...it does