BurgsideTiger

and here, we have a great example on why not to post in the forums whilst drunk. honestly, if you're a pvp'er . . . you don't spend time on the forums arguing how good of a pvper you are. that exercise is reserved for pve'ers who will try pvp for 2 days . . . then log back into their boring pve server and complain about structure spamming. try as you might . . . you'll never convince anyone that you belong in pvp.

lol, tiny companies are the reason the game is dead. enjoy it while it lasts. you got what you wanted.

I may have mis-represented here . . . . i haven't read the new change logs, and most likely won't until the 20th. So I stand corrected on this one.

You and your fancy words. I actually enjoy smaller tribes / companies .. . . 25 or so members. I didn't have this experience in Atlas, but i hated Megas in Ark. It seemed like the same 5 -10 members were online all the time, and got too vested in completing the game before anyone else. I hate feeling like every time i log out, someone else beat the game for me. So I'd rather play with a good group of 25-ish ideally . . . and survive. It does appear that this is the vision behind some of these changes, so I am excited to see what happens. We may see people that start out in a mega tribe, break away and do their own thing with a new, smaller group. This will add a totally different angle to the way people play currently, which could be very cool. however, the point i was making is only that the majority of people complaining and demanding a wipe, won't stick around in the end either way. 30 days or less for most. It gets old reading the same posts over and over, "I want to play PVP, but don't raid me unless I'm ready, also don't steal my stuff in this RP castle that I built on the shore" . . . or the ever popular "there's nowhere to build, mega's ruin everything". Enki is an example of this, he knows it . . . which is why he lashed out, expanded on certain details, and thinks that he'll succeed just because of a server wipe, and 15 hours of PVE ONLY time. 106 posts later, and he still cant figure out why he has more Forum posts than PVP kills & Land Claims combined. But I'm sure those problems come from the unconfirmed ddosing, lol.

yea, i didn't read your post . . . . .or most of the reply. After speed reading and seeing that you pretty much resort to name calling, and using rude vernaculars to try and prove some sort of point, I'm guessing that you'll last a week with the new system before going back to Apex. It's cool that your tox-ing up the forums tho. good luck with all that.

dude . . . OP is the kind of player that got old age de-buffs removed from the game anyway.

not true . . . . this only makes foundation spamming a thing of the current. you didn't play much ark, so it may not be apparent to you . . . . but if you don't want others building near you, just throw down stone foundations like there's no tomorrow. problem solved. except it will make servers run like shit, resources wont respawn, it sucks in general. but at least you wont have mega tribes holding all the land, lol. Or you could stop trying to team up with the 5 friends you have outside the game, join a larger company and have fun and a life at the same time. I'll enjoy killing you with your own weapons at some point. there's a limit to how often you can declare war on an island, so there really isn't any point of making threats if you don't bother reading the change logs. your vacation time is safe.

that game mechanic is already in the game . . . it's called skill. you have to actually get OFF THE BOAT, climb the cliff, kill the mortar gunner, profit. this is so easy, there should be no further discussion.

that'll be hard to do since every island can be re spawned on without the need for a bed.

lol, so i'm gathering that the point of this post was to illustrate that the changes are not meant to cater to the weak. But really, the argument is lost as you go on and on about how you've been beaten up and dismantled by people better at the game than you. these changes will do nothing other than bring players like you back for another 45 days, until you build up and are re-raided during raid appointments, then rage quit because "this game is ruined by mega tribes, because me and my 5 friends cant survive or find anywhere to build". how do you think we build mega tribes?? don't be a hater because you're on the outside looking in. it doesn't take a full time gamer to figure this out. I started out as a solo player, joined a company of 4, merged with a company of 60, built it up to a max of 270ish players, then merged that with a mega. building an empire vs being kind to every beach bob out there are 2 completely different topics of discussion. I am 70% excited to see what these changes bring . . . good or bad . . . but don't pretend that the ONLY reason you got your asses kicked was because the rules of the game caused it. If you were shit before . . . . you'll be shit after the changes. I just hope the changes add some fun into the mix for everyone. The game has alot of good qualities in its current state, so i'd like to see the player count continue to grow . . . . not disappear.

I was reading the OP, and thought to myself "well here comes another suggestion for a raid mechanic that doesn't make sense". Raid stones . . . . not something i agree with based on the currently described mechanic. BUT then you get to the part where you mentioned about having de-spawn timers increase based on the importance of the item (or rarity). That actually is a very simple, easily implemented asset. Changing timers would at least add some strategy for both the popcorner / and the raider. Could increase the timers based on the distance away from structure damage. but you could build the incinerator for faster disposal. Neat ideas. It is a bit disappointing when you get into a base just to find that they pop-corned everything 2 mins before.

wouldn't be the first time i tried to recruit a member of my own company, lol.

lol, that picture bro!! I would almost love to see a meta similar to how Empyrion (Spelling im sure) handles the building aspect of their ships (space ships, but still). They will pretty much let you add and build however you want . . . but get too crazy with it and you end up with a ship that is very slow, or has horrid turning, etc. Having pluses and minuses to ship builds other than damage output would change everything.

They really need to implement some physics restrictions on ship design. some of the builds i've seen, while impressive . . . would never actually float, let alone sail around. I wouldn't want to limit the design options . . . . but loading 20 large cannons on the back of a schooner, not good.

OP is pretty accurate. lawless was a mess during the first few weeks, until companies became smart and moved on, or got wiped. Now, you really only see really shitty companies on lawless who keep getting wiped, or smaller taming bases. Until they implement their proposed fix for constant offline raiding (which I'm not for, but i am for improved gameplay), it will be next to impossable for you to have a ship for more than a few days . . . . which honestly is longer than it used to be, lol. Lawless isn't bad, but you won't get a true gameplay experience staying there. If you have a small company, DM me. We may be willing to work something out.

I don't believe that Offline Raid Protection is the way to go. Ark got by without it, and i could generally log off each night, while playing solo, and have a decent chance at surviving until i could log back on the next day (dinos in tact). The trick is coming up with actual, worth a shit, ship yard defenses. defending bases is a bit better at the moment, but when the scales are tipped to far in favor of the attacking party as they are currently, this is causing the issues you describe. Risk vs Reward doesn't work if the risk is too little.

OP, don't worry about @Pax, clearly he hasn't played PVP and does not identify with the issues of offline raiding. YES, PVP should always include the threat of Offline Raiding. Part of the fun is doing and surviving just that. The issue is that every aspect of raiding / offline raiding, to date provides too much advantage to the attacker. There is not enough protection for the defender, unless he or she is in the area during the attack. Even the mega companies have issues with 1 or 2 people simply swimming into their harbor, and sinking mass amounts of ships, without much, if any resistance. I know this because I am one of those people raiding. It's too easy, and costs too little resources for the attacker. I'm going to continue to tough it out . . . . but the devs desperately need to get this balanced. Releasing things like subs and crabs . . . . without addressing basic game balance is a sure fire way for true gamers to lose interest.

This suggestion will help larger companies regulate their lower ranking members. At current, if a member goes out and builds a gally . . . then stocks it with NPC crew, there isn't much from stopping your members from poaching those NPCs from your ship, to stock their own. Locking them down with an activation rank wouldn't resolve the issue because it prevents members from using the ship (which is a different topic, with both good and bad qualities). Most companies do not have a problem with NPC's being used by company members, the issue is from the NPC's having no tracking system (a ship's log COULD be handy, showing who removed things from your specific ship), and then they are MIA for the services they were meant for. I would love to see the option for admins in the action wheel to Assign to Servitude on: ________. the mechanic from there could be that if assigned in that manner, they can NEVER be moved to a different location (a nice drawback, tit for tat situation) or simply that only an admin, or set rank member could move them from the Assigned location. This would clear up the "i was trying to whistle the ladder, I don't know why all the NPC's are in the water" situations, and add a welcome addition to Company governance, which sadly needs a bit o' work.