Community Crunch 409: Introducing Xiphactinus from ARK:Additions!

12 hours ago, TheTrueSpider said:

Yeah I agree that they should open up better levelling methods for higher level players like titanosaurs, bosses, and ocean alphas granting better xp

the main two things for levelling up are better stats and more engram points, thought the second of those slows to 1EP per level past 140, the stats do add up when you go from 105 to 155 and I’d rather power level now than wait possibly years to go up naturally.

meanwhile as for enjoying the game and taking it at pace, this is something I’ve already gone through on ASE so it really makes no difference to me. But at least on ASE there were actually reasonable ways to level up naturally, like the purple OSDS on extinction, and xp gain from killing tames, the first of which is a long way away and the second has been permanently removed

I've actually added this MOTD to my server, as a result of our discussion: "Kill a survivor >lvl 49 to earn his XP. Upload a video of exiting menu and tribe log to discord. Devangelic will add the XP of the killed survivor if the log says your character killed him. Welcome to Harder than hardcore, officially harder than official, where survival skills matter!" 

On 5/12/2024 at 1:05 PM, Brettskii said:

For real, explain to me how its going to negatively affect the casual player?

Trading in ark is a unique experience. Your reputation is valued because the uncertainty of trading and the need for it. Forcing players to form relationships with others that truly mean something. In game stores could sour the delicate and rare ecosystem that gives trading in ark its venomous beauty 

Edited May 16, 2024 by RTGLoot

On 5/14/2024 at 7:12 PM, ChrisBManos said:

Yep, it can, but not for a long time.

I know it can but if they add it to official would it still work you do know how lazy wild card is with some dinos

On 5/15/2024 at 10:12 AM, ChrisBManos said:

Yep, it can, but not for a long time.

?

On 5/14/2024 at 1:06 PM, MMaas said:

So why would you believe any extra money would benefit ASA? You can bett your dilo's and raptors it will get the same treatment as ASE the moment they are about to launch ARK2. Every penny you throw at them might end up in the wrong pocket instead of development or server maintenance/moderating.
And no, we won't have anything more. There is a huge issue with bugs that take time to fix, they had years time with ASE and they failed. Modded maps are most likely being launched faster and already available as mtx/dlc.

And about a monthly fee... Console players do pay that, MS/Sony always told us the subscription were needed for online games. Did it help them to keep the servers up and running? If you are willing to pay a monthly fee why not just start your own cluster? Why throw your money at companies prooven unthrustworty with their promisses?

Again: If you think they need and deserve more money, just donate to them. Don't use a shop that effects all players.

I was simply trying to be optimistic... For once. Better going to them than not. What they choose to do with that extra income is none of my business. I never said they "deserve" the money (ha ha yeah right!), but anything that would allegedly help the game is better than nothing. Idk about you, but (even though I don't care if it does), I would rather the game not die out entirely (or continue to be treated as if it's not really 100% cared about).

As for the cluster, I do still run a cluster of ASE Official Server Saves. 9 maps at $25 per month a piece. My goal was to keep Official alive and help others save/continue their progress. However, the retention faded so it's a lot tougher to keep running now. It's just not and will never be the same as Official.

Xbox Live only costs me $5 per month so I don't think that's a factor. I and many others still would have paid them a subscription to keep playing on a small handful of ASE Official servers. But like I said, alas, that ship has long sailed.

Edit: If you think a simple shop system like Gen2 had with the bare minimums would greatly affect all players... Well idk what to tell you. Sorry it threatens RWT lol.

Edit edit: Keep in mind, I'm not the one in which asked them to add it, nor am I asking them to. I just simply stated I personally wouldn't have an issue with it.

 

 

Edited May 17, 2024 by Mike585x

23 hours ago, RTGLoot said:

Trading in ark is a unique experience. Your reputation is valued because the uncertainty of trading and the need for it. Forcing players to form relationships with others that truly mean something. In game stores could sour the delicate and rare ecosystem that gives trading in ark its venomous beauty 

How it used to be in the old days, yeah definitely, but RWT has gotten NASTY. It's completely out of line and going as far as people holding things or areas for ransom with no repercussions. I just wish they found a way to better enforce getting rid of RWT so things can go back to the way they used to be.

3 hours ago, Mike585x said:

I was simply trying to be optimistic... For once. Better going to them than not. What they choose to do with that extra income is none of my business. I never said they "deserve" the money (ha ha yeah right!), but anything that would allegedly help the game is better than nothing. Idk about you, but (even though I don't care if it does), I would rather the game not die out entirely (or continue to be treated as if it's not really 100% cared about).

As for the cluster, I do still run a cluster of ASE Official Server Saves. 9 maps at $25 per month a piece. My goal was to keep Official alive and help others save/continue their progress. However, the retention faded so it's a lot tougher to keep running now. It's just not and will never be the same as Official.

Xbox Live only costs me $5 per month so I don't think that's a factor. I and many others still would have paid them a subscription to keep playing on a small handful of ASE Official servers. But like I said, alas, that ship has long sailed.

Edit: If you think a simple shop system like Gen2 had with the bare minimums would greatly affect all players... Well idk what to tell you. Sorry it threatens RWT lol.

Edit edit: Keep in mind, I'm not the one in which asked them to add it, nor am I asking them to. I just simply stated I personally wouldn't have an issue with it.

I do appreciate your optimism, personaly I considder myself too much a realist to believe it will benefit the game at all
Kudos for your attempt to keep official ASE alive!

7 hours ago, Brettskii said:

cmon drop that huge in game rmt store crunch later today! I know you are playing hard to get.

To be fair, I enjoy ark mobile and it is free thanks to a in game store and hopefully the revamped version keeps the same free to play model. It should be noted however that the game was designed around the store from the beginning and is on mobile where it has been normalized if not expected.
 

Disclaimer: Support for official servers is over, but the in game store is still open

7 hours ago, MMaas said:

I do appreciate your optimism, personaly I considder myself too much a realist to believe it will benefit the game at all
Kudos for your attempt to keep official ASE alive!

I'm a realist myself, yet I'd still rather the money go where it could actually have the possibility of helping rather than not.

On 5/15/2024 at 2:35 PM, Devangelic said:

Since I haven't been playing on such high character levels I have to take your word for it not being any way to reasonably level up further using relevant game content. I'd rather see some new content opening up at that level but if not you could have a very high experience gain for killing especially high level survivors. That would however only work on hardcore, because only on those servers the lives of survivors actually matter. If on non-hardcore it would get abused. On hardcore this mechanic would be hard for early game survivors to use to jump far ahead because any 130+ level character is so much more protected and progressed in the game.

Here you go, hope this puts things into perspective for you 

On 5/15/2024 at 8:35 AM, Devangelic said:

Since I haven't been playing on such high character levels I have to take your word for it not being any way to reasonably level up further using relevant game content. 

I'm a witness of this so you can take my word for it to. I first started playing ASE in the very beginning when base XP gain was approximately 1/4 what it is now. Back then it was a real grind and strain to get to level 100 which was for a time the max level and my ultimate goal. Even so, to me it felt that there was reasonable ways to get there and once I finally did on my original official server I felt so accomplished. 

Then they started adding levels above 100. I felt so exhausted with this. But, then they also increased base XP gain; so I thought maybe it's okay. But, then it turns out that the amount of XP needed increases so exponentially past 100 that it becomes impossible after 120 or 130 or so. 

I've already done the slow grind and I don't feel like I need to experience it again. To me, simply gaining access to resources and higher tier dinos and building up bases is enough of a slow pace experience that I don't need player stats or access to crafting items to be locked behind an XP wall. So on single player I just cheat in to max level and then go punch trees from there. 

On 5/15/2024 at 7:03 PM, Devangelic said:

I've actually added this MOTD to my server......"Kill a survivor >lvl 49 to earn his XP. Upload a video of exiting menu and tribe log to discord. Devangelic will add the XP of the killed survivor if the log says your character killed him. Welcome to Harder than hardcore, officially harder than official, where survival skills matter!" 

That sounds really cool and interesting! They should have this on official PVP servers to! 

On 5/14/2024 at 7:41 AM, Mike585x said:

So yeah, why the heck would I care if they had micro-transactions lol. Other players selling stuff is already basically the same thing, but at least this method could be regulated. Like making illegal substances legal finally.

I do agree with this to a point. Micro-transaction in-game shops have done a lot to help keep other games I play alive where otherwise they may have died due to not enough revenue going to the company for them to keep the servers going. The main one for me is SuperCell where they've kept their games and communities and servers alive with season game passes and other in-game shop stuff.

I think, if done right, and if done by a competent company who actually cares about their game and players, then implementing this sort of thing can definitely be a big plus for the game to keep it alive and reduce cheaters/black market systems. 

For example: One way that WC could maybe implement a season game pass in Ark is how SuperCell has done it in COC. (A way that I feel has kept it still somewhat fair and not entirely P2W). Their game pass has a "Free" route where you gain goodies by completing daily tasks. Then, for an optional and low fee, you can buy the premium route which gives you all the goodies from the free route plus more; but you still have to complete daily tasks to get both the free and paid goodies. Paid people can get essentially twice as much from the season route, but they still have to put in some effort to receive it and if a free person truly begins to feel that it is unfair well then the monthly season pass price really isn't very much so most would be able to afford it. 

For Ark, WC could do something like rewarding various amounts of resources along the route of the monthly season game pass as you complete tasks such as hunting dinos, harvesting resources, building structures, exploring amounts of map area, and on PVP servers by defeating certain amounts of players. 

Maybe on the paid route the player could also be rewarded building pieces, ammo and weapons, and limited edition cosmetics. 

Basically, players would have another and perhaps more reliable way to obtain "Loot Drops" other than hunting down actual respawning loot drops. 

I would completely be on board with something like this as the tasks based game pass system that offers rewards for free players has kept COC very much alive and fun to play. I think something like this would add daily incentive for Ark players to log on and play and keep the game alive and fun to play in the same manner. 

HOWEVER! The big difference here is "A competent company who cares about their game and its players".

Unfortunately, WC and SG is not; which means that the money would most likely not be going to any good or helpful purpose and also they probably would end up implementing this system poorly in such a way that ruins the game rather than enhances it. 

44 minutes ago, FlorianWind9 said:

I first started playing ASE in the very beginning when base XP gain was approximately 1/4 what it is now. Back then it was a real grind and strain to get to level 100 which was for a time the max level and my ultimate goal.

Shoot, max player level used to be 64 in early access. 

3 minutes ago, Joebl0w13 said:

Shoot, max player level used to be 64 in early access. 

Actually, it was bumped to 64 in June 2015. Can't remember what it was when first released. 

22 hours ago, FlorianWind9 said:

I do agree with this to a point. Micro-transaction in-game shops have done a lot to help keep other games I play alive where otherwise they may have died due to not enough revenue going to the company for them to keep the servers going. The main one for me is SuperCell where they've kept their games and communities and servers alive with season game passes and other in-game shop stuff.

I think, if done right, and if done by a competent company who actually cares about their game and players, then implementing this sort of thing can definitely be a big plus for the game to keep it alive and reduce cheaters/black market systems. 

For example: One way that WC could maybe implement a season game pass in Ark is how SuperCell has done it in COC. (A way that I feel has kept it still somewhat fair and not entirely P2W). Their game pass has a "Free" route where you gain goodies by completing daily tasks. Then, for an optional and low fee, you can buy the premium route which gives you all the goodies from the free route plus more; but you still have to complete daily tasks to get both the free and paid goodies. Paid people can get essentially twice as much from the season route, but they still have to put in some effort to receive it and if a free person truly begins to feel that it is unfair well then the monthly season pass price really isn't very much so most would be able to afford it. 

For Ark, WC could do something like rewarding various amounts of resources along the route of the monthly season game pass as you complete tasks such as hunting dinos, harvesting resources, building structures, exploring amounts of map area, and on PVP servers by defeating certain amounts of players. 

Maybe on the paid route the player could also be rewarded building pieces, ammo and weapons, and limited edition cosmetics. 

Basically, players would have another and perhaps more reliable way to obtain "Loot Drops" other than hunting down actual respawning loot drops. 

I would completely be on board with something like this as the tasks based game pass system that offers rewards for free players has kept COC very much alive and fun to play. I think something like this would add daily incentive for Ark players to log on and play and keep the game alive and fun to play in the same manner. 

HOWEVER! The big difference here is "A competent company who cares about their game and its players".

Unfortunately, WC and SG is not; which means that the money would most likely not be going to any good or helpful purpose and also they probably would end up implementing this system poorly in such a way that ruins the game rather than enhances it. 

Yes, I agree (and as I also play CoC I definitely know all about it ^-^). However, my point is that it all comes down to which hands I'd rather said money go into. Competent or not, I'd personally rather see it go where it could *potentially* help, rather than not at all. Lesser of two evils? Money to the players exploiting the system for their own personal gain, or money to the company actually running said game that could potentially help it be retained/funded? I choose the latter.

3 hours ago, Mike585x said:

Yes, I agree (and as I also play CoC I definitely know all about it ^-^). However, my point is that it all comes down to which hands I'd rather said money go into. Competent or not, I'd personally rather see it go where it could *potentially* help, rather than not at all. Lesser of two evils? Money to the players exploiting the system for their own personal gain, or money to the company actually running said game that could potentially help it be retained/funded? I choose the latter.

I also agree

allow us to be come a Villain in the ark story I think it be funny if we hand 2 story sides

On 5/21/2024 at 1:17 PM, Joebl0w13 said:

Shoot, max player level used to be 64 in early access. 

Yeah, in the very very beginning. What I meant by the level 100 is that from my start playing the game they always added more levels before I managed to max out until eventually it was level 100; which I did finally achieve and which for a time I thought was going to be max cause "100" is usually a good round max number in video games. From the start I had figured it would be their ultimate ending point so it was my ultimate goal. ?

Then shortly after I reached level 100 they bumped the max up to 105; at which point I was already so exhausted that I just kinda gave up. ?

On 5/21/2024 at 1:21 PM, Joebl0w13 said:

Actually, it was bumped to 64 in June 2015. Can't remember what it was when first released. 

I wanna say 30 or 40? But I don't know for sure. Max was apparently already level 91 when I first started.

5 hours ago, prosans said:

allow us to be come a Villain in the ark story I think it be funny if we hand 2 story sides

Ark in many ways, especially in multiplayer, is an open sand box experience. So, essentially, you can play whatever role you want! 

I know back when I played official servers, there were plenty of villains in my Ark story. ?

5 minutes ago, FlorianWind9 said:

Then shortly after I reached level 100 they bumped the max up to 105; at which point I was already so exhausted that I just kinda gave up. ?

The grind to 100 was real back then. A slog if you were solo. 

lets hope that acro gets added too