Jump to content

ARK: State of the Game


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, KPkrew said:

1+1 does not equal 100000567, your stretching a very long bow here. noone is saying your bad people they just want new players starting out on a level playing field free of the dupers, how do you do that short of wiping? if you want to play with the new servers go play, if you want to remain on your current one stay, you should never ever be able to transfer from legacy to new because as soon as you do that the new servers will be full of duped content. you will even be able to play both but on the new servers you will be a new player and have to build up like everyone else. I honestly cannot see what your issue is here 

I cannot respond to you without mentioning the words for which I got a warning issued some hours before. Sorry.

I can only say that the reasons given in OP are much likely to happen again in the new cluster.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 641
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Update:  There have been a few posts regarding the release date and why some retailer sites are displaying a different date to what we initially announced. This is because we're currently working

I will send a positive review to balance it out lol

Yes you'll pay a monthly fee for the servers based on how many slots you pick.  Our decision hasn't been set in stone regarding a new PvE cluster, it's a possibility, but for now the team feels

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Titus said:

 

life saving tourniquet? More like life support where the plug can get pulled anytime. Why do I think legacy will fail? Why would anybody buy the game to play by the devs own statements buy an inferior product. They said down the road they would recode the servers to fix problems. We have been down the road so much it's lost its substance

 

 

 

I was just expanding upon the band aid idea, it's a poor analogy altogether. Regardless, what was the better option, leave the servers as they are now, just let new players join? Open up transfers? Whether it's what you'd do, I think it's pretty obvious that leads to pillared everything in about the first day. Or did you want the wipe? I'm not saying it's the best option for you, and you're entitled to your opinion, but look at this thread, take into account the whole of everyone posting here. Do you really think more people would be happy with wipe or with open transfers?

If it were just me, I'd say wipe it all, don't divide the player base, etc. but I give big kudos to WC because I think this is the option that's best for the most players and that allows them to keep their initial word while giving new players a fresh start.

Where do the devs say legacy are inferior? Beyond that, here are some reasons maybe it's not as big of a problem as you think.

1. Newbies are going to get confused in the "super clear" game list UI and end up on legacy anyway.

2. People who've been waiting for release to buy will play with their legacy friends.

3. If salty vets move to the new servers just to grief new players, legacy might be more friendly.

4. Depending on launch success and whether people really do flock to new servers, legacy might be the only place with room.

5. People like you can continue to build your community on the legacy side. Recruit people to your sever, convince your friends to stay, do your part to make the legacy side be the place people want to be.

However, if by your own omission the legacy servers are so inferior, why should they even exist in the first place? I'm not saying they are, but frankly I don't think any game mode that doesn't have the player base to support it should be officially supported.

And I'll admit, that if there's a big a warning on release saying new players absolutely shouldn't play legacy because it's full of duping cheaters, then okay, this is a big slap in the face.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill here. In terms of PvE. We still don't have any definite parameters on what constitutes a 'ghost town' or what constitutes an 'extended period of time'. Fact is that, while many people are going to be transferring to the fresh servers, just as many people, if not more, have roots that they've sat down and aren't willing to uproot. You don't need new people to trade with (as they've probably got nothing anyhow), but these other PvE 'Alphas'. Create trade hub servers and interact as a community with your own peers. And you'll probably still get the odd newcomer if the fresh servers get filled. 

And there'll be room! People won't have to pillar (they probably still will, though); there'll be ample space for your builds now that people can spread out. And if a map is pillar'd? Then you've got practically endless other choices. I mean, I've always thought that PvE servers got crowded quickly, and it's easy to see why. There's, generally, no inherent danger after a while. People can build and build, tame and tame, breed and breed without restraint. Usually. Giving players a bit more breathing room isn't a bad thing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Arkasaurio said:

I was just expanding upon the band aid idea, it's a poor analogy altogether. Regardless, what was the better option, leave the servers as they are now, just let new players join? Open up transfers? Whether it's what you'd do, I think it's pretty obvious that leads to pillared everything in about the first day. Or did you want the wipe? I'm not saying it's the best option for you, and you're entitled to your opinion, but look at this thread, take into account the whole of everyone posting here. Do you really think more people would be happy with wipe or with open transfers?

If it were just me, I'd say wipe it all, don't divide the player base, etc. but I give big kudos to WC because I think this is the option that's best for the most players and that allows them to keep their initial word while giving new players a fresh start.

Where do the devs say legacy are inferior? Beyond that, here are some reasons maybe it's not as big of a problem as you think.

1. Newbies are going to get confused in the "super clear" game list UI and end up on legacy anyway.

2. People who've been waiting for release to buy will play with their legacy friends.

3. If salty vets move to the new servers just to grief new players, legacy might be more friendly.

4. Depending on launch success and whether people really do flock to new servers, legacy might be the only place with room.

5. People like you can continue to build your community on the legacy side. Recruit people to your sever, convince your friends to stay, do your part to make the legacy side be the place people want to be.

However, if by your own omission the legacy servers are so inferior, why should they even exist in the first place? I'm not saying they are, but frankly I don't think any game mode that doesn't have the player base to support it should be officially supported.

And I'll admit, that if there's a big a warning on release saying new players absolutely shouldn't play legacy because it's full of duping cheaters, then okay, this is a big slap in the face.

you have made some good points. We will have to wait and see. As long as there is no extra perks or benefits between the new and old server ill be ok with the fate of legacy. But if they pull a bunch of events on the new and not the old the devs will pushing not shoving people over. If there is no flier nerf on the new servers my theories will be proven. Lets see how balanced they keep it

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of PVE Legacy servers and seperated new servers. I'm pretty sure a lot of old players (me included) will create a new chara on a new server and play together with new players. And im also sure that the trading market will be bloom like the Legacy PVE market one day :)

And who knows, maybe some day Legacy + new servers will be open for traveling/trading to each other when new servers become like Legacy in a year or so.

Thanks a lot for the statment!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jat

 

For PvE purposes, is there ever a chance, similar to how Scorched Earth was, that a transfer from a legacy to a newer server might happen once they are more established?

 

I ask because I'm a colour mutation breeder mostly gigas, lots of which took so so so many hours to raise and are very special to me.  I'm glad there won't be a wipe per se but eventually as they close more and more legacy servers my server will end up in the crossfire.

If that's a year or so after official release is there any chance I'll be able to bring my best coloured gigas to one of the 'new'er servers by that stage, after they'll have had lots and lots of time to 'catch up' as it were, and I'll be able to resettle in there?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Volunteer Moderator
1 minute ago, Celessii said:

@Jat

 

For PvE purposes, is there ever a chance, similar to how Scorched Earth was, that a transfer from a legacy to a newer server might happen once they are more established?

 

I ask because I'm a colour mutation breeder mostly gigas, lots of which took so so so many hours to raise and are very special to me.  I'm glad there won't be a wipe per se but eventually as they close more and more legacy servers my server will end up in the crossfire.

If that's a year or so after official release is there any chance I'll be able to bring my best coloured gigas to one of the 'new'er servers by that stage, after they'll have had lots and lots of time to 'catch up' as it were, and I'll be able to resettle in there?

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Titus said:

you have made some good points. We will have to wait and see. As long as there is no extra perks or benefits between the new and old server ill be ok with the fate of legacy. But if they pull a bunch of events on the new and not the old the devs will pushing not shoving people over. If there is no flier nerf on the new servers my theories will be proven. Lets see how balanced they keep it

That's fair. I really don't think they'll do anything different in game to push players one way or the other, mostly because trying to do two different things is much harder than trying to do one. Look at all the issues we have now because PvP and PvE don't have separate enough rule sets.

Anyway, I truly hope it works out for you, different opinion and different game mode, but the more happy Ark players out there the better for all of us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When is ragnarok coming for PS4?. Because frist you say was coming 4 july then you change it that to the 19 july and now you change it to "coming soon" ? i dont want to be rude and i also know you guys are working hard on the game, but please many of us just want to know WHEN FINALLY the DLC is coming out for PS4. Have a nice day ☺

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zed38 said:

THIS IS NOT A BUG REPORT. THIS IS A DISCUSSION THREAD.

REFERENCE OP:

ARK LEGACY: Prediction of he Slow Death of Servers.

This DISCUSSION thread is a collection of my predictions for the recently posted decisions post-launch for Ark and the Legacy Server decisions. I will outline what I believe the short and long term effects will be for veteran players of Ark here. Quotes from the OP will be colored Red for clarity. Post your thoughts in a reply here.

We’ve got important and exciting news to share! First of all, we’ve finally completed our game for the console disc retail submission! It was a very long and arduous process, our boss fight or so to say, and your feedback throughout this process has been highly valuable. It was a very tight deadline to make the ship date, and the team has been intensively grinding through singleplayer-oriented refinements for the posterity of the disc-based version. All that aside, we were able to resolve many issues, as well as considerably improve the game through various changes and implementation of new techniques and it’s now time to move onto refocus our development efforts on the live game, as well as address some key topics within the community:

Having development work on the disc version is expected, but the game will still go through many, many patches over it's lifetime. There is no possibility that the disc will ship free of bugs and such. Console players will (like PC players do now), experience the same issues that have plagued the game. I forsee console players complaining about running out of hard disk space in short order, even if Ark is the only game installed. Essentially this means that since the game is being released on 3 different platforms, the teams will be split amongst these 3 platforms - ie: I predict there will be little to no change over the long term in terms of focus. Short term, there may be some focus work for specific platforms every so often as major problems crop up. Having a game released for 3 different platforms, and the apparent focus on development decisions to cater more towards console players in terms of QoL and ease of play, controls, other means that it is quite likely PC will (as with many multi-platform games) continue to receive the least amount of resources, while taking the brunt of first-patch pay-to-test (PC will get patches first, bug reports will be collected, then some fixes pushed out, after which the consoles will receive the partially fixed version). Since patch submission for consoles is more strict than PC this is understandable. I would imagine console sales will dominate PC sales as well, so financially this is also understandable.


Will the Official Servers be wiping?
Short answer: No -- but read the long answer! 
We had previously released a statement a year ago informing players that our Official Servers would not be wiping on the retail launch of the game. We’ve thought long and hard about the decision, taking into consideration the various points brought up by the community, the internal members of the team, as well as the general discussion that has taken place on the internet through various press/media outlets and will be sticking to our initial decision. It is clear that some group of players are for the wipe for, and some are against it, all for legitimate reasons; and we took it all into account.


We ultimately decided that we would not wipe and we would rather pay the cost to launch an additional new PvP and PvE Server Cluster network (alongside but separate from the current PvP and PvE Legacy Cluster), where players will get to have a fresh experience on the ARK; across all four maps with no influence from any of the previous servers. At that time we'll be rolling out the new server code and infrastructure necessary to prevent critical issues such as server crashing exploits, duping, and DDoSing, so they will not affect the batch of new servers (as well as the legacy ones, going forward).


Thank you for including in brackets that Legacy servers will also get updates. Notice the wording here "going forward". What I predict happening here is the reason why I chose the title of "slow death" for this post. Since the game price has jumped substantially, WCS only real option was to do exactly this - release a brand new cluster that is cut off from the Legacy servers. As everyone knows, a fresh uncluttered server will perform significantly better than those dirty old grungy legacy servers. WCS wants to maintain as good a performance level for the initial sales rush as possible. This will prevent most product refunds, and give newer players an equal footing to start out on. Don't mistake this for it being anything different than current servers however - within a few days you will have experienced players claiming the "best spots" on the new servers. By that time however the new people will have likely passed the refund window. Such is gaming these days. 


There is an extremely worrying wording in the above paragraph: "new... infrastructure... with no influence from any of the previous servers". To understand why this is a critical point of contention you first need to understand how cluster virtual machines (VMs) work for multi-server hosting. In a typical datacenter you will have groups of VMs running distributed across multiple physical machines. For example, PVE1 to 10 will be running on a cluster of VMs that is operating in Dallas, while PVEoc10-15 will be running in Sydney as an example. Inside these VMs are resources assigned to it based on the amount that WCS has agreed to pay for. This is called Provisioning. There may also be an optional Over-Provisioning for extra resources during peak times, or when some major event occurs (large war, or something). This provisioning covers connectivity bandwidth, cpu, memory, storage and a host of other optionals that may or may not be paid for. When WCS says that the new servers will be completely separate from the Legacy servers it could very well be that the VMs that run the new servers may exist on the same physical machines within the data centers, but that are separate and opaque to the legacy servers (essentially they cannot see eachother or interact in any way). Data center VM level infrastructure (often called Distributed Compute) is designed this way to allow multiple clients (Wildcard, others) to run their desired servers in tandem, while all sharing from a huge resource pool and Pay-For-Performance service model by the hosting providers (eg: Amazon Web Service, owner of the data center physical machines). Now that i've explained somewhat about this, I can now explain what my predictions are for "slow death of Legacy".


Server performance is based on how much money WCS chooses to pay for whichever cluster in question needs. If WCS wanted to make official servers perform better, they simply would have to pay more money for the resources (to a point, game code also has a large influence in this). Quite often you will see OfficialServerX with 30 people online and a generally equivilant development and age to OfficialServerC with the same people online have vastly different performance levels. If you look closely, you can see where the server is actually being hosted. Odds are that the 2 servers are not located in the same area geographically, or perhaps simply not part of the same group of VMs (cluster) so they do not share the same level of resource pool. WCS, by their statement above appears to be giving more priority for the non-legacy servers. This makes sense financially, because paying for resources to upkeep those dingy Legacy servers is far more expensive than fresh shiny new serers that are still in Thatch Age. VM resources can be adjusted on the fly without restart, and it is transparent to those playing the game. What I predict happening here is that over a length of time, the Legacy servers will continue to be "resource pool starved", causing the performance to drop ever so slightly over time (the same way human food and water consumption is stealth nerfed by minute ammounts over months right now in Ark). This will cause players to leave the servers slowly over time, and leads to the next paragraph below...


Our current set of Official Servers will be rebranded as “Legacy” and indicated as such on all platforms. We will also be taking steps to remove some of our ‘ghost town’ servers, where the player population has remained near-zero for an extended duration of time. We’ll take a look at the statistics and will be repurposing 10% of the lowest count servers across all platforms. Once we know which servers these are; we'll preserve the save files and upload them, so if you so wish to use them, you can. Players will also have time to move through Cross-ARK to a different secure Legacy server. Every three months we will be taking a review of the Legacy Officials to see what the numbers are like and may consider repurposing more ‘ghost towns’, however, the goal will be to preserve any place with human activity.


By starving the costly old dirty legacy servers, they push more and more of them towards the arbitrary "10%" mark. As the servers reach this mark, they will decomission them. Some of the old players will move to other servers, many will not and simply stop playing ark. In either case, it is financially prudent to do this. Older players already paid for the game, and are significantly needier in terms of support tickets as well as cost of VM resources to operate their server's mega-lag-bases. I don't fault this, its really the only way they can proceed. Supported further by the comment about revisiting and culling the botton 10%ers every 3 months or so.


What I predict here is that when new players join Ark for the first time, you can be assured that the servers listed nearer the top of their server listing will absolutely be the Non-Legacy servers. In fact, it could be that the Legacy servers simply do not show up for new players at all, that they would have to keyword search for them to find them (if they can join them at all, who knows). Of course, WCS wants to promote their shiny new servers to the newbies. That's not the issue. The issue will be lack of fresh blood to keep Legacy servers populated. What new player - given the choice between a shiny new ferrari, and a crappy dirty pinto with keymarks spelling "Pillared lel" scratched all over it would in their right mind choose to join the "pinto" server? It doesnt take a stretch of logic to know the answer to this. Legacy will have their old time players. Those players will slowly stop playing. No new players will join the legacy servers. Legacy servers will regularily be purged due to low population.

This cycle will be repeated again in the future I assume, with the current Legacy servers being a long distant memory, and the new legacy servers being the servers that are opening up in August on retail launch.

The rest of the dev post is irrelevant to this DISCUSSION.

The TLDR Prediction is: Legacy servers will be purposely resource starved, to cause and causing player exodus and new players will join new servers, causing Legacy servers to be culled over time due to low population. Long term vets should be prepared with an exit strategy for when their Legacy server is designated for culling.
 

 

 

4 hours ago, Zed38 said:

THIS IS NOT A BUG REPORT. THIS IS A DISCUSSION THREAD.

REFERENCE OP:

ARK LEGACY: Prediction of he Slow Death of Servers.

This DISCUSSION thread is a collection of my predictions for the recently posted decisions post-launch for Ark and the Legacy Server decisions. I will outline what I believe the short and long term effects will be for veteran players of Ark here. Quotes from the OP will be colored Red for clarity. Post your thoughts in a reply here.

We’ve got important and exciting news to share! First of all, we’ve finally completed our game for the console disc retail submission! It was a very long and arduous process, our boss fight or so to say, and your feedback throughout this process has been highly valuable. It was a very tight deadline to make the ship date, and the team has been intensively grinding through singleplayer-oriented refinements for the posterity of the disc-based version. All that aside, we were able to resolve many issues, as well as considerably improve the game through various changes and implementation of new techniques and it’s now time to move onto refocus our development efforts on the live game, as well as address some key topics within the community:

Having development work on the disc version is expected, but the game will still go through many, many patches over it's lifetime. There is no possibility that the disc will ship free of bugs and such. Console players will (like PC players do now), experience the same issues that have plagued the game. I forsee console players complaining about running out of hard disk space in short order, even if Ark is the only game installed. Essentially this means that since the game is being released on 3 different platforms, the teams will be split amongst these 3 platforms - ie: I predict there will be little to no change over the long term in terms of focus. Short term, there may be some focus work for specific platforms every so often as major problems crop up. Having a game released for 3 different platforms, and the apparent focus on development decisions to cater more towards console players in terms of QoL and ease of play, controls, other means that it is quite likely PC will (as with many multi-platform games) continue to receive the least amount of resources, while taking the brunt of first-patch pay-to-test (PC will get patches first, bug reports will be collected, then some fixes pushed out, after which the consoles will receive the partially fixed version). Since patch submission for consoles is more strict than PC this is understandable. I would imagine console sales will dominate PC sales as well, so financially this is also understandable.


Will the Official Servers be wiping?
Short answer: No -- but read the long answer! 
We had previously released a statement a year ago informing players that our Official Servers would not be wiping on the retail launch of the game. We’ve thought long and hard about the decision, taking into consideration the various points brought up by the community, the internal members of the team, as well as the general discussion that has taken place on the internet through various press/media outlets and will be sticking to our initial decision. It is clear that some group of players are for the wipe for, and some are against it, all for legitimate reasons; and we took it all into account.


We ultimately decided that we would not wipe and we would rather pay the cost to launch an additional new PvP and PvE Server Cluster network (alongside but separate from the current PvP and PvE Legacy Cluster), where players will get to have a fresh experience on the ARK; across all four maps with no influence from any of the previous servers. At that time we'll be rolling out the new server code and infrastructure necessary to prevent critical issues such as server crashing exploits, duping, and DDoSing, so they will not affect the batch of new servers (as well as the legacy ones, going forward).


Thank you for including in brackets that Legacy servers will also get updates. Notice the wording here "going forward". What I predict happening here is the reason why I chose the title of "slow death" for this post. Since the game price has jumped substantially, WCS only real option was to do exactly this - release a brand new cluster that is cut off from the Legacy servers. As everyone knows, a fresh uncluttered server will perform significantly better than those dirty old grungy legacy servers. WCS wants to maintain as good a performance level for the initial sales rush as possible. This will prevent most product refunds, and give newer players an equal footing to start out on. Don't mistake this for it being anything different than current servers however - within a few days you will have experienced players claiming the "best spots" on the new servers. By that time however the new people will have likely passed the refund window. Such is gaming these days. 


There is an extremely worrying wording in the above paragraph: "new... infrastructure... with no influence from any of the previous servers". To understand why this is a critical point of contention you first need to understand how cluster virtual machines (VMs) work for multi-server hosting. In a typical datacenter you will have groups of VMs running distributed across multiple physical machines. For example, PVE1 to 10 will be running on a cluster of VMs that is operating in Dallas, while PVEoc10-15 will be running in Sydney as an example. Inside these VMs are resources assigned to it based on the amount that WCS has agreed to pay for. This is called Provisioning. There may also be an optional Over-Provisioning for extra resources during peak times, or when some major event occurs (large war, or something). This provisioning covers connectivity bandwidth, cpu, memory, storage and a host of other optionals that may or may not be paid for. When WCS says that the new servers will be completely separate from the Legacy servers it could very well be that the VMs that run the new servers may exist on the same physical machines within the data centers, but that are separate and opaque to the legacy servers (essentially they cannot see eachother or interact in any way). Data center VM level infrastructure (often called Distributed Compute) is designed this way to allow multiple clients (Wildcard, others) to run their desired servers in tandem, while all sharing from a huge resource pool and Pay-For-Performance service model by the hosting providers (eg: Amazon Web Service, owner of the data center physical machines). Now that i've explained somewhat about this, I can now explain what my predictions are for "slow death of Legacy".


Server performance is based on how much money WCS chooses to pay for whichever cluster in question needs. If WCS wanted to make official servers perform better, they simply would have to pay more money for the resources (to a point, game code also has a large influence in this). Quite often you will see OfficialServerX with 30 people online and a generally equivilant development and age to OfficialServerC with the same people online have vastly different performance levels. If you look closely, you can see where the server is actually being hosted. Odds are that the 2 servers are not located in the same area geographically, or perhaps simply not part of the same group of VMs (cluster) so they do not share the same level of resource pool. WCS, by their statement above appears to be giving more priority for the non-legacy servers. This makes sense financially, because paying for resources to upkeep those dingy Legacy servers is far more expensive than fresh shiny new serers that are still in Thatch Age. VM resources can be adjusted on the fly without restart, and it is transparent to those playing the game. What I predict happening here is that over a length of time, the Legacy servers will continue to be "resource pool starved", causing the performance to drop ever so slightly over time (the same way human food and water consumption is stealth nerfed by minute ammounts over months right now in Ark). This will cause players to leave the servers slowly over time, and leads to the next paragraph below...


Our current set of Official Servers will be rebranded as “Legacy” and indicated as such on all platforms. We will also be taking steps to remove some of our ‘ghost town’ servers, where the player population has remained near-zero for an extended duration of time. We’ll take a look at the statistics and will be repurposing 10% of the lowest count servers across all platforms. Once we know which servers these are; we'll preserve the save files and upload them, so if you so wish to use them, you can. Players will also have time to move through Cross-ARK to a different secure Legacy server. Every three months we will be taking a review of the Legacy Officials to see what the numbers are like and may consider repurposing more ‘ghost towns’, however, the goal will be to preserve any place with human activity.


By starving the costly old dirty legacy servers, they push more and more of them towards the arbitrary "10%" mark. As the servers reach this mark, they will decomission them. Some of the old players will move to other servers, many will not and simply stop playing ark. In either case, it is financially prudent to do this. Older players already paid for the game, and are significantly needier in terms of support tickets as well as cost of VM resources to operate their server's mega-lag-bases. I don't fault this, its really the only way they can proceed. Supported further by the comment about revisiting and culling the botton 10%ers every 3 months or so.


What I predict here is that when new players join Ark for the first time, you can be assured that the servers listed nearer the top of their server listing will absolutely be the Non-Legacy servers. In fact, it could be that the Legacy servers simply do not show up for new players at all, that they would have to keyword search for them to find them (if they can join them at all, who knows). Of course, WCS wants to promote their shiny new servers to the newbies. That's not the issue. The issue will be lack of fresh blood to keep Legacy servers populated. What new player - given the choice between a shiny new ferrari, and a crappy dirty pinto with keymarks spelling "Pillared lel" scratched all over it would in their right mind choose to join the "pinto" server? It doesnt take a stretch of logic to know the answer to this. Legacy will have their old time players. Those players will slowly stop playing. No new players will join the legacy servers. Legacy servers will regularily be purged due to low population.

This cycle will be repeated again in the future I assume, with the current Legacy servers being a long distant memory, and the new legacy servers being the servers that are opening up in August on retail launch.

The rest of the dev post is irrelevant to this DISCUSSION.

The TLDR Prediction is: Legacy servers will be purposely resource starved, to cause and causing player exodus and new players will join new servers, causing Legacy servers to be culled over time due to low population. Long term vets should be prepared with an exit strategy for when their Legacy server is designated for culling.
 

 

I have been telling people that all day nobody wants to hear that or believe it. First like minded post I read all day.

  • Facepalm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jat Where does this leave those who are running player dedicated servers on consoles?  Will we not be able to do this anymore come launch date?  Im concerned here because we run a player dedicated server but do not want to pay a fee to some 3rd party to host our server for us.  You did not make it clear if you are taking this option away from us players who have up to 4 consoles.  with 1 of them running our dedicated server.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.

I didn't expect you to handle it in that way. Legacy is definitely a smart move. You'll please the pro-wipe pitchfork-mob without punishing anyone.

The console part doesn't really affect me, so I didn't read it.

But overall it seems that you managed to handle the situation pretty well so close to the release. As said, I honestly didn't expect it.

 

Edited by Jostabeere
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jostabeere said:

Well.

I didn't expect you to handle it in that way. Legacy is definitely a smart move. You'll please the pro-wipe pitchfork-mob without punishing anyone.

The console part doesn't really affect me, so I didn't read it.

But overall it seems that you managed to handle the situation pretty well so close to the release. As said, I honestly didn't expect it.

 

I'm so happy, I could dance!!

 

WildCard had me scared for a bit. Also.. Lots of people who got the chance to dupe will complain because they can't bring their duped items to the new servers, that's the point..

The people who went legit the whole time (like myself), some will be upset, some will be on board.

 

If you're like me, you just want to get away from all the duped ingots and Tek items and start fresh. A fresh economy where items have value. This is a beautiful thing!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, swtnsxykitty said:

@Jat Where does this leave those who are running player dedicated servers on consoles?  Will we not be able to do this anymore come launch date?  Im concerned here because we run a player dedicated server but do not want to pay a fee to some 3rd party to host our server for us.  You did not make it clear if you are taking this option away from us players who have up to 4 consoles.  with 1 of them running our dedicated server.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pachycephalosaurus said:

Can I upload from SP to the new servers?

No...? When have you ever been able to transfer from single to multi player?

2 hours ago, SakuraBlossom said:

When is ragnarok coming for PS4?. Because frist you say was coming 4 july then you change it that to the 19 july and now you change it to "coming soon" ? i dont want to be rude and i also know you guys are working hard on the game, but please many of us just want to know WHEN FINALLY the DLC is coming out for PS4. Have a nice day ☺

8th August, it's in the first post.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Volunteer Moderator
3 hours ago, SakuraBlossom said:

When is ragnarok coming for PS4?. Because frist you say was coming 4 july then you change it that to the 19 july and now you change it to "coming soon" ? i dont want to be rude and i also know you guys are working hard on the game, but please many of us just want to know WHEN FINALLY the DLC is coming out for PS4. Have a nice day ☺

It is being release at official release on August 8th.

I highly recommend you read the entire first post of this thread because it is an important announcement that answers a lot of questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand the negativity around this move, seems to be a lot of tinfoil hat nonsense in here.

There had to be a fresh environment for the game's launch because it not only made sense (coming out of EA, implementing all the various code fixes for dupes etc), it would be fair to the people paying full price for the game! You can't expect someone coming home from the store with their $60 game to have to complete with an established alpha tribe who've got where they are by cheating and duping stuff. I mean, they still can take that route if they want by joining a server from the legacy pool, but that'd be reserved for the pure sadists, surely ;)

Once you accept that, there are surely only 2 options - wipe the servers completely, or do what they've done here. They're even going beyond what I'd have expected with regards to offering up the saved games from the servers that will get re-purposed in case people want to use them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...