New Server Lifespan Commitment?

[DeningWei]

Obviously all the Ark servers will shut down one day, but I was wondering if it was possible to get some kind of commitment from Wildcard as to a minimum period that they will be keeping the new servers up? Will it go beyond the final DLC release?

I believe that this is important information for players to have before deciding how much time they will invest in the game.

And I think we'd prefer some kind of concrete minimum (ie 12 months) rather than fuzzy abstract terms such as "until there is 0 player activity on a server".

Anyone else want to see some kind of concrete commitment from Wildcard with regards to the new servers' minimum lifespan?

[lvirusl]

1 minute ago, DeningWei said:

Obviously all the Ark servers will shut down one day, but I was wondering if it was possible to get some kind of commitment from Wildcard as to a minimum period that they will be keeping the new servers up? Will it go beyond the final DLC release?

I believe that this is important information for players to have before deciding how much time they will invest in the game.

And I think we'd prefer some kind of concrete minimum (ie 12 months) rather than fuzzy abstract terms such as "until there is 0 player activity on a server".

Anyone else want to see some kind of concrete commitment from Wildcard with regards to the new servers' minimum lifespan?

Good luck getting any kind of solid reliable info out of WC

[retrojoe]

Enable seasons with wipes every 3 months on official tbh.

[lvirusl]

3 minutes ago, retrojoe said:

Enable seasons with wipes every 3 months on official tbh.

They already tried this, its called an extinction server. It didn't work out well.

[retrojoe]

1 minute ago, lvirusl said:

They already tried this, its called an extinction server. It didn't work out well.

Indeed, though that was a separate deal. I said on official

[powerstuck]

2 hours ago, DeningWei said:

Obviously all the Ark servers will shut down one day, but I was wondering if it was possible to get some kind of commitment from Wildcard as to a minimum period that they will be keeping the new servers up? Will it go beyond the final DLC release?

I believe that this is important information for players to have before deciding how much time they will invest in the game.

And I think we'd prefer some kind of concrete minimum (ie 12 months) rather than fuzzy abstract terms such as "until there is 0 player activity on a server".

Anyone else want to see some kind of concrete commitment from Wildcard with regards to the new servers' minimum lifespan?

They can't keep their word, no matter how you would try it.

[Xelanie]

I've lost any faith I once held in wildcard. I love their game, but I hate them.

[waterKeeper]

Never ask an eta from wildcard. Even if you get one it's always wrong.

[vowels]

2 hours ago, retrojoe said:

Enable seasons with wipes every 3 months on official tbh.

That might work for pvp....but not pve.

[Chikin]

Seasons sounds horrible. If they add that, then you better up the default rates to 10x. Who the hell wants to grind to lose it in 3 months and who actually has the time?

[BlueFox91]

1 hour ago, LastStandman said:

Does it matter if they give "concrete" statements? Nothing they say is concrete. They will say whatever is most suitable for them then do whatever they want regardless of what they said originally.

Yup, like the kill lists for example.

[AlphaCarno]

I'm personally excited to have the servers slowly close down on each other we'll all get over crowded and fight over dodos and tame cap!

[Shoosty]

They lied about every aspect of the server wipe/"migration" this time, so why would you even put stock in anything they promise for the future?

[Woodsman]

9 hours ago, DeningWei said:

 

And I think we'd prefer some kind of concrete minimum (ie 12 months) rather than fuzzy abstract terms such as "until there is 0 player activity on a server".

Anyone else want to see some kind of concrete commitment from Wildcard with regards to the new servers' minimum lifespan?

 

Get them to release their balance sheet then you will know

Try asking the same question to your bf or gf and see what kind of answer you can get

 

[StormLord]

7 hours ago, Chikin said:

Seasons sounds horrible. If they add that, then you better up the default rates to 10x. Who the hell wants to grind to lose it in 3 months and who actually has the time?

So much this. This idea is beyond terrible.

[Voidstar]

10 hours ago, DeningWei said:

Obviously all the Ark servers will shut down one day, but I was wondering if it was possible to get some kind of commitment from Wildcard as to a minimum period that they will be keeping the new servers up? Will it go beyond the final DLC release?

I believe that this is important information for players to have before deciding how much time they will invest in the game.

And I think we'd prefer some kind of concrete minimum (ie 12 months) rather than fuzzy abstract terms such as "until there is 0 player activity on a server".

Anyone else want to see some kind of concrete commitment from Wildcard with regards to the new servers' minimum lifespan?

play single player, trust me

[Insomniak]

They will have officials up for as long as they are releasing dlc for it and probably after by quite some time. Not saying good on wildcard it's just business basics... to make money you have paid dlc or micro transactions - to have either of those on console you must support your game and offer multiplayer servers if your game is indeed, multiplayer. Judging by the recent statements vs actions by wildcard, and the statement of 'ark will never have paid transactions aside from dlc' I would fully expect ark to eventually set the standard of pay to win. So yeah servers going strong years from now.

[Gwenryth]

No company ever would tell how long servers will be up, why should Wildcard? Nobody can predict the future...

[Ganelon]

Totally understand your concern.

You deserve an answer, and if there is anything I can do to help you secure, at the very least, a 'pinky swear' level of commitment, please let me know.

[JohnShannow]

it would be nice to know but i think they will tell us about one month before

hand

[Obbu]

13 hours ago, retrojoe said:

Enable seasons with wipes every 3 months on official tbh.

Agreed Entirely.

13 hours ago, lvirusl said:

They already tried this, its called an extinction server. It didn't work out well.

Wait, what? They had 3 month extinction servers?

I never knew about that, I had always been under the impression that extinction servers were one month, not 3.

I would have been really into 3 month servers, not the 1 month ones, as there's room to breathe, build, get set up, play, and then get tired of the game.

1 month is far too constrained: you hit '2 weeks till wipe' mentality 2 weeks into the deal, and lose interest.

In the grand scheme of things, it's easy to find 2 weeks playing a game confining: but 10 weeks is an entirely different matter. I'd suggest that the majority of players burn out before they hit the 10 week mark, making 12 weeks total server life far more comfortable.

11 hours ago, Chikin said:

Seasons sounds horrible. If they add that, then you better up the default rates to 10x. Who the hell wants to grind to lose it in 3 months and who actually has the time?

I disagree:

In every case that I've played ark, I've lost steam and moved off to another game before I hit the three-months straight, hours-a-day mark. This is even counting times when I played it most.

While I agree that there's a "what's the point?" window, that people would hit approximately 2 weeks before server death, I disagree that it's a massive factor beforehand. When dealing with a 1 month timeframe, two weeks still eats up 50% of the lifetime, which is huge, but with 3 months, it's only about ~17%.

While it's possibly arrogance for me to believe that I am indicative of the 'general population' in my tastes and likes, I'd still suggest that cases similar to me are more common than cases where people play forever and never stop, or never play any other games. Regardless of whether ARK players consider themselves to be 'casual' or 'hardcore' I imagine that the majority drift in and out of the active playerbase, whether due to IRL concerns, boredom, or distraction by other games as they are released.

Now, to be fair:

I can definitely see people not wanting this to occur on every server, so that they can install themselves on a server and play forever. However, I'd still love to see this as a core, readily available game mode.

The 3-month timeframe would allow:

• play to your heart's content, get addicted to and play the hell out of the game: have your fill and still not reach the last weeks of a server's lifespan.
• It would curtail transfer raiding, as you'd need to separate the populations for balance reasons.
• If the server resets are done in a staggered fashion, you could have one or more regional servers starting (restarting) every week, meaning that if you pick up Ark again at any given moment, you've always got a fresh server to play on, without having to worry about it being too dominated by alphas, or pillar-spammed.

The number one biggest complaint (for me) going into ark at any given time is the lack of fresh servers. I was dissatisfied with that aspect when I started the game, and I'm dissatisfied every time I come back. The single biggest draw for launch for me is the ability to play on a fresh server for once.

It's been a constant disappointment for me to see that the extinction game-mode has been replaced by the unfortunately rough-around-the-edges procedural ark mode. I've got nothing against the mode, but it's replaced the number 1 server type I want to see on official servers (albeit with a 3 month lifespan, rather than 1).

[Gwenryth]

34 minutes ago, Obbu said:

The 3-month timeframe would allow:

• play to your heart's content, get addicted to and play the hell out of the game: have your fill and still not reach the last weeks of a server's lifespan.
• It would curtail transfer raiding, as you'd need to separate the populations for balance reasons.
• If the server resets are done in a staggered fashion, you could have one or more regional servers starting (restarting) every week, meaning that if you pick up Ark again at any given moment, you've always got a fresh server to play on, without having to worry about it being too dominated by alphas, or pillar-spammed.

The number one biggest complaint (for me) going into ark at any given time is the lack of fresh servers. I was dissatisfied with that aspect when I started the game, and I'm dissatisfied every time I come back. The single biggest draw for launch for me is the ability to play on a fresh server for once.

I fully agree, and the 3-month servers would be the perfect solution for me as well. Maybe repost it in the suggestion forum? There must be more of us out there

While I didn't make breaks, I've started over few times on unofficials (beside playing official, atm my 9th "round"). Me (and my tribemate) play for 2-3 month, in this timeframe we get everything (incl. breeding the rex armee for doing bosses and a kibble farm). Then he plays other games, I play official and sooner or later we start a new round, maybe a new map as well.

More advantages over the "endless" server are (my personal sight):

• You don't get too attached to everything. I don't even name the tames in my kibble farm anymore, only my ridden birds and rex and maybe the utility tames get names now. 
• Improve your buildings every fresh start or try something new
• Find new cool spots to build on and discover things in your sourroundings, you wouldn't have otherwise. You get to know the map(s) much better.
• One always knows, how it is to be a newbie on the beach. I guess many people already forgot it.
• Getting a break from doing the boring upkeep in a big base.

The biggest advantage in my opinion would be, that there would always be a fresh server around in few days.

[Insomniak]

Don't look for this to happen on official again.. extinction servers bombed.. everyone likes the 3 months better on the brochure.