Search the Community

PVE and PVP iin Atlas shouldn't get the same patches. What do you guys think? PVE: Issues and bugs that have to do with beds decaying to fast on islands 10 days? To fast! 20 is better i think. PVE and PVP: Food to feed the animals and NPC's decay to fast. Not enough space in the food thing to feed them longer then 3 days. Maybe add more time to food added into ladders and thrifts? or more spaces to hold more for cycling? (or allow silo's to feed animals as the decay time on the silo is 0. that would be Great!) PVE and PVP: After your body dies drop a bag with your items in it for at least 1 hour please. Right now, as soon as your body dies and the body vanishes it takes your Items/gear with it, after a short time. PVE and PVP: Ladders V's Rope ladders on boats, Rope ladders crash you from time to time, it looks like it gets you stuck in the ground if parked to close to land or pop you off when you try to get onto them in a hurry. Wood ladders seam to work better on boats these days you'll see more people with wood ladders on ships Tacky.. then rope ones due to this bug. PVE and PVP: Grills irrigating not always working right. Fire pops off and on and wont fill right. 1 time had wood in it and it didn't want to turn off, i had to remove the wood to get it to turn off till the water filled back up to 300/300. PVE: Each time you are about to sail and lift anchor and rain storm or Fog rolls in Crazy. and seams like nice days are gone now.. what happen to lifting the anchor and having a good day to sail! PVE: NPC's Floating behind the ship as sailing and i don't mean Floating as in water. PVE: NPC's XP Points not displaying correctly while adding XP points. PVE and PVP: Ship Sails, Ceiling, Wall, Pillars, Doors, Scuba, Storage, Ladders, items on my ship NPC's are not fixing while Anchored? PVE: Floating Sam's Crates cant pick them up on the sea. PVE: Getting Stuck inside Animals when attacked. PVE and PVP: Cant color ship side Cargo Crates. PVE: After adding Ceiling's and log out or move far from them like docks even some tend to vanish and need to be replaced. PVE and PVP: Wood Doors on windows are backward. lol PVE: Can't Claim animals or NPC's on ships when claimable. Then log out near that ship/animal and the timer refreshes to a 7days ***min's PVE: Sailing in some Lawless servers cause lag on the ship. water Floating way over 1/2 the sails and puts you under water ship and all.. Looks tacky. PVE: and PVP: We need and have been asking for some more decorations, like items on walls and or our docks like Rope or Rope Ties to hold ships when docked, lamps for docks, and items to spice up the game a bit more. We have been using Wall Hooks that hold lamps on our dock to look like ship tie downs. PVE: Auction house to sell resources for gold in game. Banks would be a good start to use? Sail issue couldnt get the pic to load in here due to KB's to small

So.. I was treasure hunting, of course the spot was on top of the cliff as usual. I had my tiger and my bear with me because it was quite high quality map. Long story short.. one of the guardians got stuck in a small crevise, and when I tried to kill it with my tiger my bear attacked that too pushing me and my tiger into the crevise where we too got stuck. Not only that but the bear jumped into the same crevise after that guardian. Now both my tames are stuck in there, floating in air and I have no way to get them out. I think there should be an automatic detection by the game of floating tames (and player characters) and after some time they should be teleported to nearest firm ground. I don't believe that it would be impossible to code, and I can't really think any way to exploit that feature. At least pve should have this.

basically the title, ship rename tokens should provide a respec. rebalance the cost or what have you but this is clearly a missing component to the gameplay. thank you for your time in reading this suggestion.

=INTRODUCTION= I've recently decided to come back and take a look at ATLAS after a very lengthy hiatus from the game. Not being into the "MMO" scene, I elected to go back to Single Player and see what changes have been made - on both the "Ocean" map and the Blackwood map - which was initially designed for smaller servers/Single Player. What is disappointing to see is that Single Player - a game mode that has been included from the start - appears to have been neglected in favour of "doubling down" on the multiplayer aspect which appears to be going catastrophically wrong, given the rather passionate responses I've been reading through today. Single Player is useful to people for many reasons. 1 - It allows people to play ATLAS either alone or, though a non-dedicated server (or even a small dedicated server), with a small group of friends and experience the storyline of ATLAS. 2 - It allows people to get a feel for ATLAS without the rampant toxicity multiplayer servers typically devolve into. 3 - It allows people to experiment with and/or design ships and bases that they may decide to employ on a multiplayer server. For those reasons alone, while it may not be "the focus" of Grapeshot Studios (which to me is seems like Wildcard but by a different name), Single Player should be maintained in the same manner as Multiplayer. The following is my opinion, some suggestion and recommendations which - while I am only one person with one opinion - may spark some more creative flare from a developer or a group that can take this further than I possibly could. =CONTENT= For the most part, given my several hours of reacquainting myself with the systems and mechanics, the "new" map that came with the Trade Winds update so far appears to be a significant improvement over the previous iteration. However there are still areas that require addressing. 1 - Ships of the Damned. This was one of the major reasons I stopped playing (from a Single Player perspective) ATLAS the first time around. SotD seem to ignore any damage resistance/modifier changes. They also still spawn in the *STARTER* zone. While a fully crewed sloop in multiplayer can probably outrun them (assuming good wind - which, granted I did not have in SP at the time of my encounter), my partially crewed Single Player sloop was sunk in 4 volleys by a Level 28 Brigantine. After searching high and low for a command line or mod to assist with SotD, I ended up disappointed. I understand that SotD and AotD are embedded into the storyline and the end-game resources so they cannot be removed entirely - however their number and power should be able to be managed by command line/in-game slider. There should be a map guide (or even a revision of the mechanics surrounding SotD) explaining the likelihood of SotD encounters and their relative power in the zones/regions - similar to what occurs for Wild Pirates - so players can make informed decisions. My recommendation for handling Ships of the Damned for Single Player and small Multiplayer servers is to either implement a slider (or command lines) that reduces the level, damage and group size of SotDs that spawn in and disable their spawning in the STARTER zone (at least), if not the zones immediately surrounding the STARTER zone, ENTIRELY. This gives the player(s) a bit of breathing room to get themselves established - so that when the player reaches the open ocean in either an AI-crewed (or player-crewed) Brig or Schooner (or something larger, provided they can acquire the resources from the starter zone/immediate zones) they at least have a chance to defend themselves if they're unable to avoid the ship. I would also recommend, especially for Single Player - but could also work very well in both an Official and Unofficial setting, that SotD only spawn in the regions containing, and immediately surrounding, the Stones of Power locales. 2 - Wild Pirates. This is not a negative, this is actually a commendation. I actually very much applaud of the addition of these AI pirates from not only a Single Player perspective but also from a PvE and PvP perspective. It gives PvE something to fight against on the sea (aside from SotD) and gives the PvPers something to practice against. From a Single Player perspective it implies that the player is trying to establish their own pirate empire. The map also advises the player on just how powerful the Wild Pirates are in the zones/regions before you enter them - so the player can make an informed decision about entering the zone. 3 - Stupidly high temperatures An island with an ambient temperature of 63 degrees. That's hotter than Dubai on a hot day. In fact, that's 7 degrees hotter than the highest recorded temperature. And these temperatures kill players trying to level. Not even swimming in the ocean works at these temperatures. Either a global temperature adjustment, or a command line/slider to manage how high (and also low) temperatures get. 4 - Blackwood This map was intended to be the ideal answer for small multiplayer servers and Single Player. After exploring the map and reading comments regarding Blackwood on Steam (I've not read the comments here) it is apparent that the upkeep of the map has been abandoned. Certain trees are missing textures, it's missing certain resources and certain spawns are tricky to find. At the very least, I would encourage an update to Blackwood to ensure that those who play on the map have access to the same content as the multiplayer game in a much more condensed size. This would also suit smaller multiplayer servers. However I do have an alternate suggestion: 5 - New Map: The New World A map with the same overall size as Blackwood, but modelled after the real world - much like what the multiplayer ATLAS is doing, but on a more compressed scale. Players start in the Caribbean freeport and the Americas on the western side of the map - with the expansive "Atlantic Ocean" (containing the Kraken's Maw - and 'Atlantis' in the depths) between them and Europe, Africa (and perhaps even a representation of Asia and Australia, if it would fit) on the eastern side with the polar caps hosting icy zones representing the Arctic and Antarctic regions at the top and bottom of the map. Where possible animals would be assigned to spawn on their respective land masses/biomes (i.e. Lions, Elephants and Giraffes in Africa, Wolves in the Americas and Europe, etc.). The Stones of Power can be spread throughout the world (such as ruins in South America and Africa, hidden away in ruined castles in Europe, etc) which encourages the player (or players) to sail and explore - to tame specific creatures they would need to head to specific biomes (which, with the ability to utilise the new 'tame transporter' ship, can be great to showcase what is possible in ATLAS). It would also give players several distinct choices on where to live (the Americas, Caribbean, Europe, the Mediterranean or Africa - or the north/south pole as they choose). This map would also include the necessary resources and requirements for end-game content (such as Atlantean ruins), and need to be able to be expanded upon (in terms of catering to future content). As referenced above regarding SotD, SotD would only spawn in certain regions, though especially in the oceans adjacent to Stones of Power and surrounding the Kraken's Maw - meaning a player or players can go 'hunting' for them with only a very minor chance of them appearing elsewhere - and certainly not as soon as you exit the starter zone. 6 - Gold This is more specific to Single Player, but more ways to find/earn gold would be a great addition. As Single Players *need* gold to manage the larger, more capable ships - even to use a Sloop to get off the starter island - one could find themselves essentially bottlenecked trying to find enough gold to afford a crew. I have no issue with the cost of AI crew, or their cost of retention, but coming up with the gold to pay for them to begin with was quite challenging. In my playthrough, very few bits of flotsam spawned in the starter area and I found myself having to use a raft (after already buying and prepping the ill-fated Sloop) to head out into the adjacent, more dangerous zone, to look for flotsam - to then head back to the starter area in order to get myself a crew. In SP, I suppose I am not penalised for staying on the starter island (with the exception of not having access to metal) so this might not be seen as much of an issue, but in a multiplayer setting - you don't necessarily want your players to base out of the starter island: you want them to leave and explore the larger ATLAS world (hence why there is now no metal on the starter islands). Even if, in SP specifically, one of the vendors in the freeport bought a stack of wood, thatch or stone for 1 gold. It's a lot of work (rates notwithstanding) for little gain but if a player is struggling and they're prepared to put in the effort, they can afford to get off the island with a crewed Sloop, leaving the starter zone behind them (though I would still return myself, especially if I was hosting a non-dedicated session with a friend - or if it was a private server). =CONCLUSION= Overall, I did find that ATLAS had fewer, less obvious bugs than when I last played - so it has clearly had some TLC applied. During my 5 or so hours getting reacquainted, I had no trouble with the way leveling now works, or the introduction to progression. I can not, obviously, speak to the balance of the wider multiplayer game as I personally would not seek to play ATLAS on such a scale - as I play with a small, close group of friends. From what I've been able to observe and achieve in my time, there is no issue with how things progress (with the exception of SotD and extremely high temps). If the 6 main points above were to be addressed and/or achieved this would put ATLAS in good stead when it comes out of Early Access. If "v1.0" does not contain methods to address or fix the issues listed above, the game cannot be considered "out of Early Access" when features it has had since EA launch do not function as intended across all game modes. Thank you for reading.

Cannons should be much loader. I can be less than 100 foundations away from my ship and not hear someone shooting cannons at my parked ship. Cannons shoots should be pretty much heard from anyway on most islands. At least the small to mid size islands. The more cannons being fired the louder it should be also. I have had to ships sunk in two days due to not being able to hear cannons being fired one of them I was literally on the beach in front of my ship on a lawless taming a giraffe maybe 25 foundations away from my ship. also while your at it fix the damn taming of giraffes and elephants. They should not be able to hit you from feed distance not only that the damn things are constantly glitches and spinning on the ground.

Owner of islands should be able to destroy any structure on island loosing tames to old traps or buildings is rediculous my island is spammed with one players building who doesn't play just gets on to reset timers can't even build on the island I own

There should be an option in the company group settings to allow members of that group to change the company access/activation levels of doors. crafting stations, chests etc. to a level equal or lower than their own IF the activation level of said object is lower or equal to theirs. It would be even better if it was possible to set a range in the company group settings within which they can change it e.g. a member that has access rank 5 and the changing range 5-3 would be able to change the access level of all objects with an activation level lower or equal to said members activation rank to access level 5, 4 and 3 but not lower. At the moment the problem is that members can not change the default access/activation level (as set in the group settings) of any object not even of their own stuff e.g. if they want to make something accessible for lower ranks they always need to call an admin to do it and the same thing applies if they want to raise the access/activation level of their stuff e.g. after they got a promotion to keep lower ranks from accessing their stuff they again have to call an admin to do it. The only available solution at the moment is either for the admin(s) to run around all day changing the access and activation levels to the members request or to make everyone an admin but in that case it is pointless to set any access or activation levels because they do not apply to admins (which is generally good and useful but does not help in this case).

Atlas is much better with ships fighting other ships at sea etc. than blowing a plank or 2 off of an anchored ship whose owner is offline Let them damage whatever they want if a ship is unprotected, but for the sake of fun it should not sink if anchored It's not the most realistic solution but a 15ft tall ship anchored in 3 feet of water sinking isn't very realistic either

It would be cool if the note would save the information about the person that crafted it like for example tools, weapons and armour do. That way it could be used as kind of a signature to identify the "document" as authentic which would enable players to use the note for treaties or for orders etc. and the crafter's information could be used to authenticate said note. It would be even better if there was some kind of item that would allow more text on it, would have some kind of signature function and as such would make any kind of document unforgeable which would open up a lot of possibilities for player interaction/cooperation. Players or companies for example could give out papers which would allow the holder to access certain areas or use them as a kind of cheque the value of which the player could cash/redeem at any holding of the company that issued said cheque. The possible uses for such an item would be basically limitless.

The army of the damned that spawn when you do treasures should go back to being damaged by artillery such as swivel cannons. It makes no sense why they shouldn’t be damaged. Swivel cannons were a way for me to effectively solo treasure maps without the need to use more skill points to unlock tames. I think a better solution than making them not get hurt from it(which doesn’t make sense physically), instead their damages is halved for the Damned. This would allow people who like me to solo treasure hunt. This is my favorite thing to do in the game and is the source of most of my fun and it is ruined for me. If people think it is too op or something then keep it how it is in pvp but make them do half damage in over.

You should add it so crews can sail ships and follow you. I'm tired of having to move 1ship at a time

Unlike the generic version found in freeports, when you harvest ants and spiders, you also get a non-generic version that still has the keratinoid symbol in the top right of the thumbnail so it can be used in blueprints. Should this non-generic version be called chitin or keratin?

My base is on D5. I've looked all over this tile and have gone south to the tropics at D6-7, but I can't find any sap or sugar anyplace. Is there a biome in which its more prevalent? Its driving me crazy. Thanks

Death should have consequences... Currently death has no real consequences other than those that are a result of other consequences. I think death should have character consequences, so that players would generally seek to avoid death, and as is it can even be exploited a good deal because it has no consequences what so ever. If one were to lose a certain amount of maximum hit points per death, either based on a static amount or a percentage based on total amount of hit points, down to a maximum hit point reduction cap, which I think should be no more than 25% of the characters total hit points (based on base amount + hit points gained from level). These should be regainable over the course of time, eating healthy, applying remedies (and possibly magic if implemented) and avoiding conflict - the amount of time should be tweaked to find the appropriate amount and should obviously also be tied to the amount one would lose per death, so one should as a minimum recover a base amount equivalent to a day per death, or similar. This way, death is taken alot more serious, and won't be exploited, at least not to the degree it is now. This will also be beneficial to taking hunger, thirst and vitamins seriously, where as now because death has no consequences, it's more of an annoyance than anything else. The consequence of dying could be as much as 5% per death and as little as 0.5%, which will be up to the devs to decide. To clarify: This would essence be a temporary debuff that last at maximum a day per death, up to certain maximum, which sole depends on how severe the consequences of death is going to be, so these should be tied, which basically is just the debuff being stacked and as such should the recovery time. This is something that characters can recover from, through eating healthy, avoiding conflict and death. As it currently is, the hunger, thirst and vitamin system is disliked and not even taken serious, because there is no real downside to it, as you can just let your character die and then respawn without any real and lasting detriment to player's character or the player for that matter. This can be improved to a point where it can both a benefit or a detriment to the player's character. So how could it be achieved that the thirst, hunger and lack of vitamins is taken more serious? For one, by introducing a more lasting detriment to the player character if death to the character incurs, for whatever reason, like for instance reducing the maximum number hit points the character has by a certain amount or percent, although still with a maximum reduction that it can be reduced to. The character would be able to regain these by a certain amount/percent per day, where keeping certain vitamin types in the high area would lead to faster recovery, and it could be considered that certain foods would lead to even faster recovery, various remedies could possibly also be considered to add to this effect, including magic if that becomes a thing in the game. Furthermore, the vitamin surplus debuff really needs to be removed, as having a vitamin surplus has realistically never been a thing, because for humans excess vitamins is flushed from the system and does not become absorbed. The maximum hitpoint should also be able to be increased through the same as above, but only to half amount of what it could be reduced with. Actual values will need to be tweaked to find the appropriate amount, but I think the maximum hit point reduction cap should be around 25% of total hit point, and the maximum it can be increased temporarily to should be 12,5%. Further clarification: The bonus to maximum hitpoints, etc. is the equivalent of a lasting temporary buff that will expire upon death, where this death would put one to 0% in terms of bonus or penalty. It's basically a stackable buff that will stack up to the maximum 12.5%, the increments it will increase with depends on what values the devs decide to go with. However, 2.5% is a fitting number. This is to encourage attempting to stay alive for prolonged periods of time. A note on wildlife & other issues that needs to be fixed I will say this though, there are various things that certainly needs to be fixed before implementing this, like wildlife has to be fixed. Because wildlife currently as is - a great threat and would only be intensified if the above is implemented. But why do I say that wildlife is a great threat? The thing is, most of the wildlife that are aggressive by default can out right kill you, especially if you cannot outrun it, you can outrun snakes, but they can torpor you even after you've outrun them, where it will either attempt to still kill you or some other aggressive animal will. The primary issues with hostile wildlife is that they can attack through the mesh of the environment, including buildings and ships, where they should not be able to, the spawn amount and respawn timers, and that they're way too lethal and you cannot outrun them. Some of the absolute worst in the game currently would be wolves, lions and crocodiles. On the note of crocodiles, they're so bad currently because they can attack characters on smaller ships and can prevent players from getting rid of them, even trying to lure them away from the ship won't work, as they swim faster and only takes 2-3 attacks to outright kill one, they can potentially kill you before you even get a chance to lure them away. And given how respawn mechanics work, it almost litterally impossible to get it away from the ship. So yes, the wildlife is too much of a severe threat and seriously needs to be toned down, especially BEFORE implementing the above. In regards to implementing the above, it also means that bugs, glitches and game imbalances where death can incur needs to be fixed appropriately before implementing the consequences of dying as suggested in this post. I am interested in knowing your thoughts on this @Jatheish and the community as well. Perhaps others have ideas similar to this or ideas that will support this even further.

Two things, a) The angles for the weight and handling sails are wrong. The way these sails work in game is not how they work in real life. This really breaks the immersion and makes sailing less intuitive. b) Not only could this 'fix' be purely graphical at this stage - it could also easily be expanded beyond this to make the handling and weight sails viable choices when choosing main-sails via added gameplay elements - which I will go into below for those who are keen for a quick read. The game suffers because the sails are too similar - they are things that rotate to the nearest direction of the wind - with slight gimmicky speed and angle and weight values plugged on to distract the player into thinking these sails are worth thinking about. In reality, these sails function very differently, and including these functions ingame will make the sailing aspect (one of, if not arguably ,the main aspect of the game) much more dynamic, and rewarding for those who follow different play styles. At this stage its hard to tell how much research the devs did into tall-ship sailing - no doubt they got the basics right - square sails were speed sails, handling (only on modern boats but tall-ships had stay-sails) or gafs(weight sails) were for pointing upwind. But the inclusion of rotating booms that go infront of the mast pointing handling/weight sails literally into the wind makes me think more research is a good idea. Including more realistic sailing mechanics has the possibility to deepen and enrich the gameplay - not damage it. Ironically, I believe further complicating the system it will actually make sailing easier for the novice - who can stick with certain sail types for ease of use - and deepen the strategic depth of those who want to challenge themselves. Current sail "choices" Speed - faster, harder to set and sheet Handling - normal speed, wider angle of effectiveness (can point higher to the wind), very fast handling Weight - normal speed, harder to set and sheet, adds weight to the ship. The problem with these choices is that weight sails become nearly useless (especially since weight is a level-able stat), and they are difficult to set. All pvp builds I've come across opt for maximum sized speed sails and 1 small handling. Those who are good at sailing just go for double speed. Some who just want to 'run' away go for double handling for the higher wind point, thus ensuring an escape against a faster opponent so long as its 'clear' sailing. The game currently manages to miss a major perk of the handling and weight sails - that they are 'symmetrical'. This means that when ship is tacking upwind, you can 'set and forget' these types of sail, (the direction being parallel to the boat pointing aft) this allows the wind to be caught at the greatest possible angle upwind. In this set-up, when one performs a tack, the sail does not need to reset - however the sail DOES need to be reset after performing a gib. This has two great consequences - solo players who dont have NPC's or early build ships will have both an easier time sailing upwind and it encourages the use of both handling AND weight sails (not having to set a weight sail every tack really makes them more viable by removing their slowness con). Proposed changes Speed - these don't need to change - they're perfect, if anything however, any upwind angle for these sails could be removed - they physically can't go upwind and were designed for bearing down on an opponent at great speed - but downwind only. this gives you control of the engagement if you find yourself upwind of ur opponent. Handling - these need to function symetrically - instead of rotating to point into the wind they should be let out and let in from the 'central position' of the boom parallel to the ship. letting the boom out will catch the most wind downwind, letting it in will allow the ship to point very high into the wind. Performing a tack should be very easy with these sails, performing a gib should at the very least require resetting . Weight sails - function exactly like handling sails - except they are slower to set - and if a gib occurs and they have to fling from one side to the other you could add 'sail' damage to it. Additionally, they should add armour to the boat too. Addition of the STAY SAIL - these sails should be able to be placed between masts - this also encourages multiple masted boats as they have more manouvering over single masted (finally a large sail is faster than two mediums - but the possibility of an upwind stay sail sways the decision into a real toss up for the player) . These sails function like handling sails and are very easy to set and forget. They allow the boats to go upwind a lot more effortlessly. These also really make tall-ships look like tall ships - at the moment, Atlas ships look naked inbetween the masts. Anyway, thanks if you've made it this far. Rant over. at least graphically fix the handling and weight sails! drops mic.

with the game well populated again, it's almost impossible to get bottles, everywhere I've been marking since season 1 is full of shipyard / base constructions now, making the bottles no longer appear

♥ For 1453 hours, I have played this game in PvP. As we know, this game is a pirate game but after a new patch, again and again, It seems to me that devs tend to focus on updating new content mainly in new tamed and environment instead of ship updating. I would like to discuss about the new contents that I want to see. Let's talk about design first. I would like to see the developers introduce new various ships to fulfil different purposes for players like Caravel for discovery, Indiaman for cargo, Privateer, Frigate, Ship of the line for battle and adding more sails as well. The ship's sails and ship appearance in this game are really annoying to me. Look at Brigantine for example. Most players often attach three speed sails on it and make the ship looks like the kind of weird. There's should have had sails like Spirit sail at the ship's bow and Spraker sail at the stern that can increase ship speed as the rest too. Not to mention the captain's cabin at the stern that is empty, no windows and no big company's flag. Next, we should be able to board the enemy ship and capture it in a short amount of time like 10 minutes when a ship is unanchored but we have to wait more than 8 hours to claim which is really suck. And some good news from the last patch, there's spear bolt which can pull enemy ship but a ship can still fire to each other. If a ship can't fire when spear bolt pulling it, that's mean the boading enemy ship will be easier and it's possible to capture it. And the last point is NPCs that can't do anything more than a mindless robot. It made the game lifeless. This game should categorize NPCs to many occupations such as crew NPCs for mounting canon and controlling sails, pirate NPCs that can board the enemy ship, etc. Moreover, at the Freeport there should be NPCs roaming around like a real port city and some of them can ask players for doing quests. And it is going to be better if there're NPCs cargo ship sailing across between different Freeport or even NPCs pratol ship that can be plundered by players to get foreign materials. But for now, we have to bear with a boring long haul journey to get materials for the blueprint. I hope that this game can be better when it comes out from early access ♥ PS: Don't mind my English skill xD

I've pointed to No Man's Sky in the past as the ultimate example in the gaming world of "The opera ain't over til the fat lady sings", but until this past weekend, I'd never actually played it. My boss (who incidently is one of those mythical grown adults who plays both console and PC games and makes distinguishing between the two as somehow separate and distinct groups somewhat silly) has been campaigning for me to try it for at least half a year, and has kept me abreast of Beyond, it's free update released last Wednesday. It is currently on sale at half price for another couple of days and so after giving it til friday for my boss to verify the new update was as promised, I finally took the plunge over the weekend. I didn't write this to hype a different game on Atlas's boards, but in the sincere belief that all concerned can take something instructive away from No Man's Sky. If you've been living under a rock for the past 3 years, then NMS's launch might be the only one to rate as a bigger charlie foxtrot than Atlas's. When you have legal and regulatory agencies of multiple governments publicly declaring their intent to investigate your game based on allegations of outright fraud, it's safe to say something has gone horribly wrong. Yet Hello games, in the face of massive bad publicity and widespread public rebuke, declared their intention to simply put their head down and go about making NMS into the best possible game they could. If ever a developer had every reason to just walk away, this was it, but they didn't. Fast forward 3 years. The game I played over the weekend was engaging, it felt fully developed and fun. If I had been unaware of NMS's disastrous launch I would never have known from playing it. I believe NMS is an instructive example for 2 parties in 2 ways. The first will not be what you expect. For Jeremy and Snail Games, and all other decision makers in the gaming industry, look closely at No Man's Sky and think hard about whether you really want to release your game long before it's anywhere close to a finished product and charge people money for it, whether you call it Early Access or not. Because the damage to your game's reputation if you do so and it goes poorly cannot be undone. No Man's Sky took 3 years to dig itself out of that hole, and what it has arguably lost in the process is the chance to ever be a big hit. It's clawed itself into being a solid game because Hello games put blood sweat and tears into making it that way without ever asking for a penny more from the people who bought their product. But if they had waited until now to release, who knows what it might have been. Certainly more than the 10k average activity steam charts even over the past weekend with a major new content release AND the game at half price. "Long is the road and hard is the way that out of hell leads up to heaven." Indeed. It would seem wiser never to put yourself in hell in the first place, wouldn't it? Secondly, for everyone who bought Atlas and now despairs of the game's prospects as hopeless and beyond repair: go and have a look. I'm not saying what will be, merely what is possible. If GrapeCard™ were merely shysters looking to make a fast buck, I sincerely believe that they would never have chosen an MMO to do it with, and more importantly, they would probably already have walked away. Atlas is making almost no revenue at this point. Do you see many new players trying the game out? The fact they continue to press forward should be evidence of a significant commitment to produce a viable game. It is entirely possible that the game could still fail, that it's myraid issues may never be satisfactorily resolved enough to attract a meaningful and viable playerbase, but that is only a possibility, not a certainty. I want to also say a word about the continuing criticism of Atlas's concept as not just pirate themed, but pirate/fantasy. If you don't like the concept, by all means say so, that's useful and legitimate feedback. But at the same time, try to give them credit for trying something new and different. The gaming industry has too little innovation and experimentation at the top these days, as the bigger companies just regurgitate mostly bad sequels to already proven franchises. If Jeremy et al had truly wanted to just create Ark II, they could have done it without taking the chances they have with Atlas. Beyond this, for those that just want to stand on the sidelines, throw stones and jeer instead of offering useful and constructive feedback, I offer the words of Teddy Roosevelt: “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

So we're six months into what has been announced as a 2 year EA (minimum) development cycle. After a burst of initial excitement at intriguing possibilities like 40k players all on the same map and 700 different islands to explore, it's probably safe to say that the precipitous drop in playerbase is a strong indication most who tried Atlas out initially on the promise of these and other selling points have found them wanting. While the devs have worked continuously to make improvements and produce new content, I'm not getting the impression that any of it has created meaningful enough interest to draw significant numbers of players back to the game. All successful MMO's must have at least one aspect of their game that is the draw, the thing the game hangs it's hat on and is known for. Atlas will need to differentiate itself not only from other MMO's and survival games, but other pirate games as well. I think one of the reasons it is struggling is because there is no one aspect of the game which is strong to the point that when any of us as players are talking to friends, family and other gamers, if they ask "Why should I come play Atlas with you?" we could answer "Because it really does X well." One quarter of the way into that 2 year EA cycle is a point where either this should have started to become apparent, or the devs need to pick something and focus on it to really make it shine and stand out. My question to everyone is: What do you think that thing could or should be, and why?

Reason I played this game was to interact and have fun with other players. I think too many have moved on and are not coming back. I struggle to login myself. Sailed some gold to one of our outposts, passed through 6 zones, and counted 5 people total besides myself. We have moved passed ghost ships to ghostly server populations. According to steam charts both PVE servers combined barely make it to 1000 players a day. Really sad that such an expansive beautiful game is dead now. Was fun while it lasted.

Lawless Islands should be in peace mode 24/7 (PVE) but the 15 min timer for ship protection should be changed to 1 hour before protected but remove all rare resources from Lawless islands but make it impossible to create items using blueprints on lawless island or in the lawless zone (freeport included) this would allow people to sail across the world without having to worry about taking their ships back to their island it would shrink the size of the world this would allow new players to have some kind of chance to progress in Atlas at the moment its almost unplayable for new players the game is currently dying

Uses a Tier 2 saddle, actually used to pull carts.. (bulls and oxen) If you could 'Make it so!' please

I think this pic should explain it adequately.

Currently the vitamin increasing arrows cover the vitamin bar to where it is difficult to tell the level. They should either be slightly smaller than the bar itself or moved downward away from the area that vitamins usually hover around.

!