Jump to content

Why Ark is fundamentally flawed as a competitive game.


Octia

Recommended Posts

On ‎9‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 1:17 PM, ranger1presents said:

What you are describing as an ideal to strive for is a game where it is prescribed that both teams have equal composition, and only have identical equipment issued to each player to use.  A game or sport with severely limited options and restrictive guidelines.

There is nothing wrong with playing football, or chess, or monopoly... or any of the myriad of other games and sports set up in this fashion.  But none of those are open world survival games.

The closest ARK has ever had to that was Survival of the Fittest, yet even that would fail your litmus test for a "fair" game because the other players might choose to work together (even though you would have the same option at your disposal).  Or they might chance upon a drop of better equipment than you did (although the odds were equal for all players to find it), or they might be further away from an area affected by a particular type of event (never mind that positioning on the map was an important element of the strategy).

Restrictive game design and rules are fine for many sports and games, but are completely inappropriate for others.  For example pure combat games of all types offer a variety of equipment to choose from, and you have no control over what your opponent will pick or have available.  They do come a bit closer because the team sizes are usually the same, but again those are match based games of short duration and extremely limited scope... and would STILL fail your definition of fair if for no other reason than you don't have control over the rest of the members of your random team.

Balance in an Open World game like ARK is attained by making sure that everyone has the same options at their disposal.  All characters are created solo and start with nothing, beyond that every opportunity and option for progression is open to everyone equally.  The person that now runs a mega tribe of hundreds started the game with exactly the same opportunities and choices to make as you. 

You are quite correct in that not every variable is completely under your direct control, nor should it be.  By the same token those very same variables are not under anyone else's direct control either.  This is by design.  A Mega tribe can't force you to join them, nor can they force you to stop harassing them.  All they can try to do is make it so that you want to make that decision yourself.  In a game with literally no penalty for death, they have virtually zero leverage to force another player to do anything if they don't want to.

You can try to lay blame for your current situation on anything and everything... but the hard truth that experienced gamers recognize is that you have no one to blame for your circumstances but yourself.  And if you don't like those circumstances you have a myriad of tools and strategies available to you to change them, but you actually have to act rather than finger point.

That's not true, They can tranq you and cage you until you leave the server.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 9/25/2017 at 10:17 AM, ranger1presents said:

What you are describing as an ideal to strive for is a game where it is prescribed that both teams have equal composition, and only have identical equipment issued to each player to use.  A game or sport with severely limited options and restrictive guidelines.

There is nothing wrong with playing football, or chess, or monopoly... or any of the myriad of other games and sports set up in this fashion.  But none of those are open world survival games.

The closest ARK has ever had to that was Survival of the Fittest, yet even that would fail your litmus test for a "fair" game because the other players might choose to work together (even though you would have the same option at your disposal).  Or they might chance upon a drop of better equipment than you did (although the odds were equal for all players to find it), or they might be further away from an area affected by a particular type of event (never mind that positioning on the map was an important element of the strategy).

Restrictive game design and rules are fine for many sports and games, but are completely inappropriate for others.  For example pure combat games of all types offer a variety of equipment to choose from, and you have no control over what your opponent will pick or have available.  They do come a bit closer because the team sizes are usually the same, but again those are match based games of short duration and extremely limited scope... and would STILL fail your definition of fair if for no other reason than you don't have control over the rest of the members of your random team.

Balance in an Open World game like ARK is attained by making sure that everyone has the same options at their disposal.  All characters are created solo and start with nothing, beyond that every opportunity and option for progression is open to everyone equally.  The person that now runs a mega tribe of hundreds started the game with exactly the same opportunities and choices to make as you. 

You are quite correct in that not every variable is completely under your direct control, nor should it be.  By the same token those very same variables are not under anyone else's direct control either.  This is by design.  A Mega tribe can't force you to join them, nor can they force you to stop harassing them.  All they can try to do is make it so that you want to make that decision yourself.  In a game with literally no penalty for death, they have virtually zero leverage to force another player to do anything if they don't want to.

You can try to lay blame for your current situation on anything and everything... but the hard truth that experienced gamers recognize is that you have no one to blame for your circumstances but yourself.  And if you don't like those circumstances you have a myriad of tools and strategies available to you to change them, but you actually have to act rather than finger point.

Pretty much sums up what I was thinking. I think having more options for defence would ease a lot of complaints (Behemoth Walls for example). Ark is a game where people are free to work together if they choose, but I do think to have more options would be to have more viable strategies, which would give smaller groups more decisions against larger tribes. I'm not one that thinks a smaller tribe should have the upper hand per-say, but luck/skill also come into play, so maybe with more options, the small guy could start fighting back/defending. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see a separate official servers with a modified rule set geared towards a smaller tribes and probably more casual PvP as after ark is a past time and not a job.  I have looked at possibly modding it myself but I simply don't have the time or inclination to make a mod nobody plays still though.  I would much rather have the option to play elsewhere than upset someone else preferred game and if WC provided something that resembled the following rules I probably personally enjoy ark more.

Small Tribe Casual PvP Rule set.

This isn't exhaustive nor is necessarily balanced but its just some ideas listed.

  1. Max tribe size 5 players ( this could be handled dynamically with actual game mechanics rather than hardcoded, but it requires greater explanation).
  2. No formal alliances.
  3. Keypad gate/door/storage access restricted only to tribe members.
  4. Lower limit to number of building parts.
  5. Limit the number of tribe snap building groups. That is to say a tribe can have x base where a base is a collection of snapped building parts.

More complicated rules that might require more effort to implement. 

     1.Tribe maintenance as a balancing mechanic for tribe size ( something that become more costly per additional tribe members)  a resource(s) that requires time to farm and stock pile. This inactive or unproductive tribe members actually have a drag on your tribe. (exist somewhat in feeding dinos)

     2. Base maintenance another balancing mechanic that controls the number and size of bases I personally hate seeing huge bases with 100's of guns manned by 2 people for majority of the time. Essentially acting as oppression palace. Mobile_Oppression_Palace.jpgonce and oppression palace exist a few players can dominate a whole server which leads to poor small group and new player experience tbh.

    3. Have base/tribe maintenance decay at a faster rate when tribe members are online. This is to combat the 12 hour a days (4000hr+) players the more you play the more time you have to attend to running of your organisation. Also to actively encourage your player base to moderate their game time I think is personally good for everyone. We all like to binge so a mechanic that allows you to but at the same time reduces the natural advantage of putting in 8 hours more than other players can only be a good thing.

I lurk a lot, I rarely post 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 3:32 PM, ForzaProiettile said:

No the problem is more to do with flaws in the games engine that allows players to adjust their setting for enhanced vision.

The maps themselves are also a problem. The best map to hide on is the island but that suffers from being rather small. Then you have The Center and Ragnorak those big bland boring maps that suffer from a lack of dense vegetation which means your relying on the size of the map to hide you rather then terrain. 

If you ask me they should add some kind of camouflage netting. You drape it over your base and then unless you go within 20m of it, the base doesn't render. Obviously it would have to be balanced I would make it so you can apply one net in a given area and it would cover a very limited area so only for small bases. The moment you put plant x or turrets on said base it should cease to be camouflaged.

thats a terrible idea man. i can think of numerous ways to exploit that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 8:03 AM, forddefect said:

I'd like to see a separate official servers with a modified rule set geared towards a smaller tribes and probably more casual PvP as after ark is a past time and not a job.  I have looked at possibly modding it myself but I simply don't have the time or inclination to make a mod nobody plays still though.  I would much rather have the option to play elsewhere than upset someone else preferred game and if WC provided something that resembled the following rules I probably personally enjoy ark more.

Small Tribe Casual PvP Rule set.

This isn't exhaustive nor is necessarily balanced but its just some ideas listed.

  1. Max tribe size 5 players ( this could be handled dynamically with actual game mechanics rather than hardcoded, but it requires greater explanation).
  2. No formal alliances.
  3. Keypad gate/door/storage access restricted only to tribe members.
  4. Lower limit to number of building parts.
  5. Limit the number of tribe snap building groups. That is to say a tribe can have x base where a base is a collection of snapped building parts.

More complicated rules that might require more effort to implement. 

     1.Tribe maintenance as a balancing mechanic for tribe size ( something that become more costly per additional tribe members)  a resource(s) that requires time to farm and stock pile. This inactive or unproductive tribe members actually have a drag on your tribe. (exist somewhat in feeding dinos)

     2. Base maintenance another balancing mechanic that controls the number and size of bases I personally hate seeing huge bases with 100's of guns manned by 2 people for majority of the time. Essentially acting as oppression palace. Mobile_Oppression_Palace.jpgonce and oppression palace exist a few players can dominate a whole server which leads to poor small group and new player experience tbh.

    3. Have base/tribe maintenance decay at a faster rate when tribe members are online. This is to combat the 12 hour a days (4000hr+) players the more you play the more time you have to attend to running of your organisation. Also to actively encourage your player base to moderate their game time I think is personally good for everyone. We all like to binge so a mechanic that allows you to but at the same time reduces the natural advantage of putting in 8 hours more than other players can only be a good thing.

I lurk a lot, I rarely post 

 

 

try no tame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again I think it is unrealistic to expect a bigger tribe to not have an advantage over a smaller tribe... the smaller tribe can still pester a pose a threat to a larger tribe, but there will always be strength in numbers in terms of power and in terms of raw gathering ability.

To have it balanced any other way will just break things further. Everyone in this game currently has the ability to join/create/etc a large tribe. This isn't something only available to a select few. On top of that even if you are a solo player they have added the ability to form alliances.. this means you can come together and form alliances with other solo and small tribes in an attempt to counter a big tribe. They have added so many ways to keep yourself more protected.. they have even added a specific dino that can be set on passive that can burrow itself underground and be next to impossible to locate if you put it in a smart location (seems like a good way to hide your valuable BP's)

All of the time spend creating these threads and asking or even demanding changes could easily be spent experimenting with ways to adapt and overcome. There ARE ways to fight back or even play and have fun... the problem is they wont just be handed to you, but what fun would that be anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well something has to be done sooner or later before we lose even more players. 

Think about... there's really only 1 way to protect a base 24/7, while there's countless ways to attack/soak and infiltrate a base.

What would help? more options for easily-obtainable defensive/offensive structures for level 20-50 players instead of what we currently have which is very situational and won't help protect their base. Plant X is to weak, easily bypassed and destroyed. Bear Traps aren't going to deter raiders, maybe a level 5, but not the locals on the server and especially not the aggressive alpha/alliances. Tames are out of the question, and if you don't know why, I'm honestly not even going to bother explaining why because you should know, if you play.

Low level players need a powerful deterrence for their base. One that isn't as powerful as Auto-Turrets, but will surely deter raiders.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29.9.2017 at 8:56 PM, Deathwaits said:

Once again I think it is unrealistic to expect a bigger tribe to not have an advantage over a smaller tribe...

This is true^^

20 hours ago, Crows said:

Well something has to be done sooner or later before we lose even more players.

But i think this is true as well^^ so changes need to happen to keep a broad and healthy community.

Most suggestions i have seen so far either benefit big tribes as well as small ones or are easily exploitable. The only real solution in my eyes is to limit the number of members and alliances per tribe. This improves the disbalance between big and small tribes, while maintaining the current game mechanics (same conditions for everyone, more people = more progress...) without any weird extra rules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...