Did you know WC is cutting tribes to 400 tames in 2 days???

[Kallor]

9 minutes ago, LadyDeviedra said:

 It also allows some people to claim better dinos than they have and kill off theirs to replace with the better ones.

Or maybe they play the game and go find and tame better ones for themselves.  I'd say that is a precise reason why claiming should be removed rather than a reason why it should stay.

[Bolty]

Is there any further news regarding this from WC??

[turbodonkey]

3 minutes ago, Bolty said:

Is there any further news regarding this from WC??

"it is not our policy..."

I wouldn't hold your breath.

[Braddock110]

Cry babies who needs 400 dinos man xbox get what 200 and even than can't even have 200 server limit is reached before than 

[CyberAngel67]

22 minutes ago, Braddock110 said:

Cry babies who needs 400 dinos man xbox get what 200 and even than can't even have 200 server limit is reached before than 

Xbox hasn't had a server limit for nearly 12 months.

But I did have a funny thought, what if they are doing this to get in preparation for cross play with console users. Ooh I see the flame wars begin now.

[turbodonkey]

1 hour ago, Braddock110 said:

Cry babies who needs 400 dinos man xbox get what 200 and even than can't even have 200 server limit is reached before than 

Helpful.

[Braddock110]

Has to be server limit we have maybe 100 dinos on our center and we couldnt claim our babies until we unclaim few.

[Rhinenorr]

I play on a pvp server and I had a tribemate start a new tribe for this valentine's day weekend and we hit tame limit in three days for our secondary tribe. Gonna need a horde of dinosaurs for boss fights

[Gwerny]

Problem seems to be the fixed numbers stated and / or proposed for this change.

400 seems too much for a 1-2 man tribe, but not enough for a 20 man tribe.

A fixed number per survivor might not be enough for solo play and would and a large tribe would have too large a number. Eg. 100 per survivor, not enough for silo tribe?  2000 for 20 man, too much?

How’s about using a formula. Lets say there are 4 types of tames, egg farm (E), breeding (B), utility (U), and personal (P). and add a scaled amount to each tribe based on the number of members.

Egg Farm – A 20 man tribe might need an egg farm that’s twice as big as a solo player, so for a solo tribe (E x 1) and for a 20 man tribe (E x 2)

Breeding – A 20 man tribe might need less dinos per member than a solo tribe for breeding, so (B) could be less for a 20 man tribe than a solo tribe.

Utility – Gathering and such. Eg beaver for wood. A solo tribe would probably need only 1 whereas a 20 man tribe might need 3 or 4 so scale (U) to match.

Personal – your personal, caving and boss fight dinos. This could probably be a fixed number per member for both solo and 20 man tribes. (P)

= use formula each time tribe changes size for dino limit.

I’m not going to suggest numbers, I’ll leave that to people who know more about the game, also if these numbers aren’t linear you can always add a non-linear function into the formula.

There would still be a limit, not trying to get around that, just trying to balance it a bit better.

Thoughts?

[LadyDeviedra]

7 hours ago, Gwerny said:

Problem seems to be the fixed numbers stated and / or proposed for this change.

400 seems too much for a 1-2 man tribe, but not enough for a 20 man tribe.

A fixed number per survivor might not be enough for solo play and would and a large tribe would have too large a number. Eg. 100 per survivor, not enough for silo tribe?  2000 for 20 man, too much?

How’s about using a formula. Lets say there are 4 types of tames, egg farm (E), breeding (B), utility (U), and personal (P). and add a scaled amount to each tribe based on the number of members.

Egg Farm – A 20 man tribe might need an egg farm that’s twice as big as a solo player, so for a solo tribe (E x 1) and for a 20 man tribe (E x 2)

Breeding – A 20 man tribe might need less dinos per member than a solo tribe for breeding, so (B) could be less for a 20 man tribe than a solo tribe.

Utility – Gathering and such. Eg beaver for wood. A solo tribe would probably need only 1 whereas a 20 man tribe might need 3 or 4 so scale (U) to match.

Personal – your personal, caving and boss fight dinos. This could probably be a fixed number per member for both solo and 20 man tribes. (P)

= use formula each time tribe changes size for dino limit.

I’m not going to suggest numbers, I’ll leave that to people who know more about the game, also if these numbers aren’t linear you can always add a non-linear function into the formula.

There would still be a limit, not trying to get around that, just trying to balance it a bit better.

Thoughts?

There definitely needs to be some kind of cap system that scales with the number of tribe members. This is a much more thought out idea than just to put a solid cap of 400 dinos per tribe because it doesn't take large tribes (10-20 members or more) into account at all and is very unbalanced when you look at it from a solo tribe vs 20 man tribe perspective. Unlikely as it is, I really hope the developers will take the suggestion of the tribe dino cap scaling per tribe member on board whether it's from this topic or someone else forwards it directly to them.

[d1nk]

11 hours ago, Braddock110 said:

Has to be server limit we have maybe 100 dinos on our center and we couldnt claim our babies until we unclaim few.

Hey man  We didnt notice a problem with server cap and we play on the same centet xb

[Sofe]

I think easiest solution for tame hoarding would be universal kibble. There is so, so many creatures what you need solely for their kibble.

[Darkintellect]

On 2/18/2017 at 3:21 PM, Vad said:

My issue is with lack of communication from WC about it. Dropping it in the middle of a post on steam and saying that it's coming in the next update without informing of the logistics to their community is not a good way to treat the issue or the players.

This has been listed since last week. 

[Clarey]

We could be completely done with kibble farms if instead of the current kibble progression tree, kibble was just scrapped and we had a carnivore (kibble) mutton for instance, for herbivores the Vegetable Sweet Cake. Just that in itself is enough to justify the removal of potentially thousands of dinosaurs per server.

All that would need to be done to somewhat simulate kibble progression is to make the amount of mutton/cake needed to tame dinosaurs who would traditionally be further along the progression, much higher. But reduce effectiveness loss per food so tames can still achieve maximum efficiency as they would with current kibble. This would be an attempt to stop a level 15 knocking out a 150 rex and being able to tame it with just a few mutton like you would with a raptor. Quantity required would add the level of difficulty in taming that getting kibble currently does.

A level of complexity could be added to this if you didn't want to change the amount of mutton/cake required for a tame. You could create for instance potted mutton, which would tame medium dinosaurs. Stewed mutton for large dinosaurs, for herbivores perhaps a particular filling of a cake (like jam filled cake or cream cake) and make the ingredients the level of complexity, thus requiring higher level items/machines and the preceding 'kibble' to create or even a certain crafting skill or engram level. (You make potted mutton from mutton, them create stewed mutton from potted mutton, each requiring additional materials or cooking times or both).

Its such a simple solution to such a complex and game breaking issue.

[Grizzel]

40 minutes ago, Clarey said:

We could be completely done with kibble farms if instead of the current kibble progression tree, kibble was just scrapped and we had a carnivore (kibble) mutton for instance, for herbivores the Vegetable Sweet Cake. Just that in itself is enough to justify the removal of potentially thousands of dinosaurs per server.

All that would need to be done to somewhat simulate kibble progression is to make the amount of mutton/cake needed to tame dinosaurs who would traditionally be further along the progression, much higher. But reduce effectiveness loss per food so tames can still achieve maximum efficiency as they would with current kibble. This would be an attempt to stop a level 15 knocking out a 150 rex and being able to tame it with just a few mutton like you would with a raptor. Quantity required would add the level of difficulty in taming that getting kibble currently does.

A level of complexity could be added to this if you didn't want to change the amount of mutton/cake required for a tame. You could create for instance potted mutton, which would tame medium dinosaurs. Stewed mutton for large dinosaurs, for herbivores perhaps a particular filling of a cake (like jam filled cake or cream cake) and make the ingredients the level of complexity, thus requiring higher level items/machines and the preceding 'kibble' to create or even a certain crafting skill or engram level. (You make potted mutton from mutton, them create stewed mutton from potted mutton, each requiring additional materials or cooking times or both).

Its such a simple solution to such a complex and game breaking issue.

I've been discussing this with a few people for a while now,  so many things can be done with a system like this to add complexity to non Dino required items. Fermenting, preserving,  freezing, marinated, macerated, diced etc etc with each Dino either preferring a type of preparation of an item rather than all preferring different egg types.

[Kallor]

48 minutes ago, Clarey said:

We could be completely done with kibble farms if instead of the current kibble progression tree, kibble was just scrapped and we had a carnivore (kibble) mutton for instance, for herbivores the Vegetable Sweet Cake. Just that in itself is enough to justify the removal of potentially thousands of dinosaurs per server.

Agreed, along with your other suggestions.  However they have said they will look at the kibble system AFTER they have completed all the dinos, which is too late for the current issues or dealing with an arbitrary cap.  So long term, great.  But they also need to put in place some short term changes to enable the current kibble system to be used without the mega sized egg farms currently being used.  The changes should require minimal dev effort as it's a short term workaround not a final solution.  This is all possible, if they care.

[vanyelxp5]

1 minute ago, Kallor said:

Agreed, along with your other suggestions.  However they have said they will look at the kibble system AFTER they have completed all the dinos, which is too late for the current issues or dealing with an arbitrary cap.  So long term, great.  But they also need to put in place some short term changes to enable the current kibble system to be used without the mega sized egg farms currently being used.  The changes should require minimal dev effort as it's a short term workaround not a final solution.  This is all possible, if they care.

If people would actually read about the egg laying mechanics they'd understand that a mega sized egg farm is completely pointless even now. The optimal size for an egg farm currently is less than half of the tribe cap being implemented in 2 days.

 

I'd even go a step further and say that the mega egg farm actually gives fewer eggs than a fully optimized one. Though that is based entirely around personal experience, not empirical data. My old server has a mega farm. Guaranteed, at least 1000 dinos inside the walls. I could sit at it all day, and maybe get 20 rex eggs. My personal egg farm that I have optimized, I often get more than that in 2 hours. The farm on the old server, 30+ rexes. My farm, 3 rexes, 4 if you count the male.

[mgnt232]

400 is way more than Xbox is allowed now

[Hoss76]

On 2/18/2017 at 5:23 PM, Lhazi said:

LoL hold up, do ANY of you play PVE???

Tribe limit is curently 200, so how is this Negative at all other than the Lag we will now get for bumping our Egg farms up even more?

I think this is a step in the right direction seeings  they want ppl to Tribe up while only offering the same dino cap for individuals as tribes. Our tribe of 3 almost split up because of the 200 cap. 

XB1 PVE+

So funny how they all talked yet were clueless about what they were talking about 400 is an increase per tribe.. at least on Xbox that is.

[vanyelxp5]

Xbox isn't getting the 400 limit. the 400 limit is PC, and pve only

[Halsey]

36 minutes ago, Hoss76 said:

So funny how they all talked yet were clueless about what they were talking about 400 is an increase per tribe.. at least on Xbox that is.

From what I've seen on Reddit and Twitter, the only people this affects are those of us playing on Official PC PvE servers, I believe Jen specifically answered someone on her twitter feed and said there will be no change to the xBox limits right now.

 

That said, the cap will certainly change things a bit, I've only been playing a few months, and solo by choice, this is one more point against joining a tribe.  I'm no where near the cap at the moment, but as has been mentioned plenty in this thread, the biggest flaw I see with the cap is the anti tribe push.  Even if you play in a group it's pushing towards a group of individuals as opposed to a tribe.

[vanyelxp5]

40 minutes ago, Halsey said:

From what I've seen on Reddit and Twitter, the only people this affects are those of us playing on Official PC PvE servers, I believe Jen specifically answered someone on her twitter feed and said there will be no change to the xBox limits right now.

 

That said, the cap will certainly change things a bit, I've only been playing a few months, and solo by choice, this is one more point against joining a tribe.  I'm no where near the cap at the moment, but as has been mentioned plenty in this thread, the biggest flaw I see with the cap is the anti tribe push.  Even if you play in a group it's pushing towards a group of individuals as opposed to a tribe.

Honestly, if tribes actually played as tribes (as in, not going "This is mine! Go tame your own!" as the game's designers clearly intended) it wouldn't be much of a hindrance to their ability to play. Now, a 20 person tribe is a bit much for this limit, but 1-5 people who are actually working as a single unit toward group goals? They'll barely even notice the limit if they're not hoarders.

[AERHAE]

On 2/18/2017 at 2:10 PM, Vad said:

Did you know WC is cutting tribes to 400 tames in 2 days???

Better read up on a few statements from Jen on Steam. Not a response from WC on their website but you better speak up because like she said it's coming. Without your knowledge or anything else from WC as to the details. GOOD LUCK to ALL. 

There is going to be more limitations imposed on the official community the closer we get to official release date. I've said this before,the official network has got some issues we should see addressed before Ark Survivals official release this summer/fall.1.is creatures.2.is Building.People better start to realize that low populated servers are not a good thing as well.You can get a good since of what is to come by understanding the Dev Kit for the game and the discussions from the moders there.Every time they update the Dev kit you can get a since of pattern by looking back at Dev Kits history of updates correlating to the game updates.This goes all the way back to before nerfing the giga.This is why it is called early access.I would not at all be surprised if the number 400 gets lowered on the official network and well as see a config command for dino limit=true as well as building limitations modifier=true.The lag on the official server network is incredible compared to any private server running over 20 mods. I'm pretty sure it is why we saw WC launch the no tame server a few weeks ago.Checks and Balances are at play.

[Kallor]

1 hour ago, vanyelxp5 said:

If people would actually read about the egg laying mechanics they'd understand that a mega sized egg farm is completely pointless even now. The optimal size for an egg farm currently is less than half of the tribe cap being implemented in 2 days.

As far as I'm concerned anything more than ONE female dino for egg laying is too many.  If the current egg laying mechanics don't support that (they don't) then the mechanics need to change.  The debate about how many dinos is currently optimal is irrelevant with regards to getting egg laying numbers down.  Too many is still too many, I don't care if it's 2, 5 10 or 20.  Reducing egg farms from gigantic down to massive or huge is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  If Wildcard is serious about reducing dinos numbers, then they MUST make equally serious changes to enable the reduction.

Sure it will all change (or hopefully) when they revamp kibble, but since the cap is being introduce NOW, then they need to enable egg farm workarounds at the same time. 

[Braddock110]

8 hours ago, d1nk said:

Hey man  We didnt notice a problem with server cap and we play on the same centet xb

Idk than we couldn't claim babies until we and few other tribes unclaim things maybe glitch lag ark anything could have happen. Just think it's funny pc people complaining they can only have 400 and consoles get a 200 dino cap. Good luck at actually having a good egg farm without couple of different accounts just for egg layers.