CazzT

All evidence says otherwise. Having been through numerous server wipes for numerous games over many years, I've never seen a server wipe have a bad impact on the player count. They did a server wipe for ARK several years ago and it not only did not kill ARK, it barely impacted player count at all. Who said anything about ongoing wipes other than the anti-wipe/Chicken Little crowd? They're making a massive change to a core feature of the game. For PvE, at least, a wipe is necessary for this particular feature change to provide a fair playing field. No one is asking for monthly or multiple wipes.

Server wipe is not not a punishment, though. Providing a level playing field is not a punishment. There's a huge change to claim system coming. In order to provide the most fair playing field on PvE servers, a wipe is necessary. Again, though, I don't think a PvP server wipe is necessary, even though it wouldn't really hurt. I'm actually more inclined to be against a wipe for PvP servers just to enjoy the fighting for dominance that PvP servers naturally have.

PvP servers I see no reason for a wipe. I can't say it wouldn't be good for them after the claim revamp, but there's already a system in place that will eventually balance the claim issue anyway, even without the revamp. But that's only for PvP servers. For PvE servers, yes, a server wipe is necessary after the revamp. PvE doesn't have the option to contest flags at any time, so the playing field will need to be reset for it to be fair.

That's still a latency issue. The object is recognized as being there, but it still has to be sent from the servers to tell the client what that object is so it can be rendered.

1) Then don't wait. Go find someone who IS online. Don't be a dbag. 2) Problem 1 will be largely solved when more people are playing. Getting more people to play requires a system that doesn't punish you for needing to take care of real life. For the same reason that timezone limits raiders getting together to raid in regular MMOs. Go find someone else to attack. LOL So it's not that you want to fight another player, it's that you want EZMODE loot from another player. All you griefers keep saying we don't need ORP, just build more defenses, and here you are saying you won't fight another player because they've taken your advice and built more defenses. You've proven exactly why we need ORP. Because you're not interested in PvP, you just want free/easy loot and to grief. You mean they're using tactics to defend?! NO WAI!!! Why would anyone do that?! What insanity!!! You're just proving more and more that you're only interested in free/easy loot. Can we please stop bringing up Eve. Even as someone who is for ORP, I'm tired of seeing that game brought up. You can't build there like you can in Atlas. So it's not even comparable.

So you admit you have no interest in, or are afraid of, actually fighting other players and have to resort to destroying people's stuff when they're not there to defend it. And you expect anyone who is not a griefer to find your behavior anything but griefing?

Jat has already put out an official statement saying very heavily implying they don't care. They, the devs, are more focused on fixing the root of the problem, and they don't have the time to deal with what's going on in the game at this time. Could you imagine Blizzard saying "meh, we don't have the time to fix the root of the problem and take care of the people cheating, so we'll just focus on the root of the problem. sorry, sucks for you guys". How fast would the WoW servers become ghost towns? I get that GrapeWildShotCard is a small/indie dev, but if you don't invest and protect your product, it will fail.

So I sail around to the various zones where I have flags instead of bed-porting there. All you did is make it take 10 minutes longer to do the same thing. Limiting beds is not a solution. But I agree that limiting flags is not good either. Flag upkeep is the only solution that provides flexibility and fairness. And the upkeep can be tweaked far more finely than limiting flags/beds.

Tax is one thing I actually can't argue against. ....once the claim system is fixed. As things currently stand, it should be turned off due to how broken claims are.

They take no action against those griefing and exploiting. What's worse, they have officially said that they don't really care that people are currently doing this, which is turning people away from the game and generating bad reviews in the gaming community, in favor of working on fixing the things that let them grief and exploit. There are two problems with this. 1) It does nothing positive for the people currently playing the game, which results in bad press/rep for the game and the devs. And it also makes people want to leave, which they are. Lots of reasons for people leaving, but from what I've seen, it's lots of small things piled on top of each other, and almost always includes griefing and/or exploiting as one of the reasons. 2) They can do both but are making excuses for not. I understand financial limitations. But if you don't invest in your product, it will not succeed. They need to invest in at least one person to investigate these reports (which are not exactly difficult to investigate and I would be happy to do that if I were paid to do so). The evidence isn't exactly lacking, either. But the official statement from Jat tells griefers and exploiters that they have a free pass to do what they do because the devs will do nothing to punish their actions and behavior. They don't ban at all. They take no action at all against griefers and exploiters. As much as I'd like? Any at all would be an improvement. This we can certainly agree on. It sucks losing something to a bug. And I very rarely use this as a defense, but it's Early Access. Some issues, specifically bugs, are and should be expected. Especially with this company. Instead of lamenting the loss, post about it in the bug section so it can get fixed. No one expects you (general term) to not be upset or annoyed that you lost something due to a bug. But bugs happen in EA. Especially this early on.

Depends what the upkeep costs are. If they go with a steep curve, similar to what someone suggested elsewhere, 5 flags would be very expensive.

A steep curve, but not linear doubling. But I do like your suggestion. As someone who generally plays survival games solo, I could easily handle having 2 or 3 flags on my own. And with a steep curve increase, big companies would still get to fight for leaderboard spots (lame as that is).

Percie is right. It's latency/lag more than anything else. I, too, would like a greater render range, preferably the whole zone from corner to corner, but I know this is unfeasible. I also know that SOTD like to "teleport" a lot for me even though I have a great connection to the servers. It's a little irritating to be cruising along and *POP* a SOTD is dead ahead and I have to pull hard to the side to avoid it getting angry. Hell, half the time it gets angry anyway. Not sure where the hang up is between me and the servers or what, but I'll be glad when that silliness is fixed.

How about no. Limiting flags should not be overly restrictive. Upkeep is a far better restriction. It allows those who A) put in the work to have a large stake and B) larger companies expand to allow them hold more land. With upkeep, these mega companies would still have comparatively large swaths of land, but it would be FAR less than it currently is. Limiting players to only 2 flags means you have almost no land to work with.

That..... seems really dumb.

I'm not really seeing a justification for the bookshelf being locked so far into the tree. The Larder isn't very far into the cooking tree, the Ammunition Box isn't that far in. The Bookshelf doesn't really offer anything that a large storage chest doesn't offer except for storing just maps (and notes?). I'm not taking a side one way or the other at this point. But I'm having trouble understanding why it's so far into the tree. If it did something special with the maps, then I could understand UDO's argument, but it doesn't, so I can't.

The fastest way to make me walk away from a game is to do nothing about griefing and exploiting. The fact that they've officially stated, through implication, that they don't care about griefers and exploiters at this time is enough for me to not touch the official servers for now. Why would I want to when I know that griefers have the devs' blessing to be dickholes? Luckily there are some great unofficial servers out there.

Fair enough. Those are outliers, but I can't argue with adding a couple extra days to the timer. I do think the current 21 day timer is too long for contesting claims, though.

What has moderator status got to do with anything? Can you point to where I said you can't do those thing? No, you can't. You made it clear you don't want to waste your time defending something (that you clearly can't defend), so I gave you some advice to not get involved in something you view as a waste of your time. Your reply that I'm quoting here is rather toxic, though. I'll even save you wasting your time to ask me why it is and explain it now. You're defending something that someone said, but you don't want to "waste your time" defending it. To which you are given advice to not get involved in things that are a waste of your time. To which you then respond with hostility. THAT is toxic. But let me give you more advice. Do please block me if you're so offended. It would be better for your mental health, I think.

Even though you're not the one who called it toxic, you're defending as being such. Thus the burden of proof is on you to explain why it is. Then don't get involved in the conversation to begin with.

I'd like to modify this idea to make it more palatable and fair. Keep flag contesting. It's a good thing for PvP. Still unsure of its benefit for PvE since I can't really see a way to contest without PvP becoming a part of the equation. As for the claim disappearing, that's a great idea. But let's change something that will make things more fair for all, especially on PvE. A claim flag in PvE should become contestable after 14 days. If you can't log in for at least a few seconds in a two week period, you've got bigger issues in your life and gaming needs to take a backseat anyway. After 21 days, the flags are removed from the world and any buildings that were on the previously claimed land begin to decay, opening the land for active players.

Too bad ships don't drift when not anchored. I mean, that's kinda the point of anchoring a ship, to stop it from drifting around and/or away. If unanchored ships could move due to currents and/or wind, that would solve a lot of the issues with ship blocking. Though before they implement something like that, they need to adjust how damage is considered, because I can already see chem B and other dbags spamming ships to let them drift into others to destroy them.

This is absolute BS. You will not convince anyone that you need an entire island's 30% taxes for anything you're doing. You certainly don't need an entire ZONE's islands at 30% taxes. At least you're honest. I can respect a greedy prick if they're at least honest and self aware about their greediness. Doesn't change my negative opinion about you, but I can at least respect the honesty.

As things currently stand, it could be moved. Unlike in ARK, where if you go too far above your max weight you're rooted in place, we can still move even with over 100k weight on us. I know this because I've done it (moving a base on an island... that was a fun 3 hour trip to move a short 5 minute run down the beach lol). That's why I suggested the token having weight. And it would still allow for ship transport, but at a large risk.

If you can't explain why it's toxic, then it's not toxic and you're just being an overly sensitive snowflake.