Jump to content

Why Ark is fundamentally flawed as a competitive game.


Octia

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, ForzaProiettile said:

Currently if you want to PVP properly in this game you MUST run your graphics on ultra low.

41 minutes ago, ForzaProiettile said:

I find it quite incredible that the devs can nerf turtles yet keep the horribly OP nonsense that allows players to build over the driver on platform dinos. That is pure broken gameplay.

21 minutes ago, ForzaProiettile said:

While you can't stop someone doing verbal alliances without the alliance mechanism things are a lot harder. Verbal alliances for instance can't come and defend your base because your turrets will kill them equally as good as the enemy. Without alliance chat the only way to communicate really is in global and the enemy can read that. I don't know about you but I played this game back in 2015 - 2 weeks after launch. There was none of this coward alliance crap back then. If you were being attacked and you wanted outside help you had to sing in global. That in itself evened things up since everyone could read it and take advantage of it.

good points Forza!

I´d say we need to think about what was different in the past, before megatribes existed and we enjoyed a game with smaller scale pvp, local politics and ressource-motivated raids. we need to understand the reasons why these megatribes exist, and search for solutions to the problem.

The first really big tribes came up when transfers became a thing. all official servers together in one huge cluster with no restrictions to transfer from one to another. this inevitably has to lead to a small amount of megatribes controlling all of the servers. which, as you guys described, is a problem as they prolly wont be nice, the game doesnt provide good oportunities to lead a guerilla war, and even if u try to go that route, u have to work several times harder than they do and still wont ever achieve more than to be a little nuisance to them.

But it is alright that a big group has the advantage over the small group. anything else would be stupid. the problem is the space that lays in between a megatribe and a small tribe. the possibilities the game provides for a big tribe vs the possibilities it offers to small tribes. if it was all closer together the chances are more evened out while still making group work and time investment worthwhile (im coming from primitive, where stone tier was max and we had no guns or explosives, felt much more balanced than base game)

so yeh... my ideas would be  1. to get end game and early game closer together  2. to form smaller clusters (maybe 8 or 12 servers per cluster), which would remove the need to form huge tribes  3. to further restrict transfers (maybe character only?)  4. to further restrict tribe and alliance sizes. of course people can still work together when unallied but it makes it harder and requires more coordination and such

whatever the future brings, it should be the devs interest to make their official standard game enjoyable for the majority of players, not only for a little group, and they should form their game towards that overall goal. (copied my post from another thread cuz im lazy :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply
17 minutes ago, ranger1presents said:

Now you're reaching... a LOT.

If you prefer smaller tribes and more restrictive rules for combat there are plenty of options for you that do NOT involved changing the entire game for everyone else to match your preference.

Maybe I am but at the end of the day I'm a very competitive PVP player who likes to kill/battle other players daily. I can't play unofficials cause salty admins ban me for causing their servers to lose population and besides there is way more targets/players to be had on Officials.

I've played this game since the start back in 2015 and seen it evolve sadly in mostly the wrong direction. In my humble opinion adding flyers, Gigas/Titanosaurs and magical nonsense was a mistake as was adding stuff that only benefits larger tribes (Tek tier).

I get that the majority of players like to play things safe and risk free, that's why there is so many PVE players and why so many players want to be in these large tribes on PVP servers. I accept my views are most likely not mainstream but I would love to see flyers removed from this game as I would like to see tribes capped at 10 with no alliances.

If WC could make a few servers in a cluster to test it out I'm sure that it will prove rather popular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ranger1presents said:

Condemning other players by saying they want to play "risk free" in one breath, and then asking for your particular play style (solo) to be protected from people that enjoy working together in the next, seems more than a little bit disingenuous.  ;)

 

I should of stated it clearer but I'm not a solo player I've always played in a tribe of around 3-5. I'm not against players working together but everything has to have its limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, natman said:

good points Forza!

I´d say we need to think about what was different in the past, before megatribes existed and we enjoyed a game with smaller scale pvp, local politics and ressource-motivated raids. we need to understand the reasons why these megatribes exist, and search for solutions to the problem.

The first really big tribes came up when transfers became a thing. all official servers together in one huge cluster with no restrictions to transfer from one to another. this inevitably has to lead to a small amount of megatribes controlling all of the servers. which, as you guys described, is a problem as they prolly wont be nice, the game doesnt provide good oportunities to lead a guerilla war, and even if u try to go that route, u have to work several times harder than they do and still wont ever achieve more than to be a little nuisance to them.

But it is alright that a big group has the advantage over the small group. anything else would be stupid. the problem is the space that lays in between a megatribe and a small tribe. the possibilities the game provides for a big tribe vs the possibilities it offers to small tribes. if it was all closer together the chances are more evened out while still making group work and time investment worthwhile (im coming from primitive, where stone tier was max and we had no guns or explosives, felt much more balanced than base game)

so yeh... my ideas would be  1. to get end game and early game closer together  2. to form smaller clusters (maybe 8 or 12 servers per cluster), which would remove the need to form huge tribes  3. to further restrict transfers (maybe character only?)  4. to further restrict tribe and alliance sizes. of course people can still work together when unallied but it makes it harder and requires more coordination and such

whatever the future brings, it should be the devs interest to make their official standard game enjoyable for the majority of players, not only for a little group, and they should form their game towards that overall goal. (copied my post from another thread cuz im lazy :))

I'd like to be an optimist but I'm finding it harder to be convinced each day that the devs truly play their own game. They certainly haven't set foot on a PVP in a long damn time.

As I said in another thread perhaps its high time the devs got a whole bunch of PVP players together to help come up with fresh ideas on how to fix issues on the PVP side of the game. Put 10 PVP players each with 2000 or more hours of experience together for 1 hour in a chat session and I'm sure they would come up with some truly novel solutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then substitute "small group" for the word solo, the point is the same.  You want your group to be protected from other groups that have managed to get larger than yours... and then accuse that larger group (which I might point out have the exact same tools and opportunities that your group has) of being cowards simply because they have been successful and gotten larger than your group.

They had no advantage over you, you have every opportunity they have, there is no reason you can't compete on that level.  But instead you wish to restrict their game play to bring them down to your level.

You should probably give that a serious rethink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then substitute "small group" for the word solo, the point is the same.  You want your group to be protected from other groups that have managed to get larger than yours... and then accuse that larger group (which I might point out have the exact same tools and opportunities that your group has) of being cowards simply because they have been successful and gotten larger than your group.
They had no advantage over you, you have every opportunity they have, there is no reason you can't compete on that level.  But instead you wish to restrict their game play to bring them down to your level.
You should probably give that a serious rethink.
Well said
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ranger1presents said:

Then substitute "small group" for the word solo, the point is the same.  You want your group to be protected from other groups that have managed to get larger than yours... and then accuse that larger group (which I might point out have the exact same tools and opportunities that your group has) of being cowards simply because they have been successful and gotten larger than your group.

They had no advantage over you, you have every opportunity they have, there is no reason you can't compete on that level.  But instead you wish to restrict their game play to bring them down to your level.

You should probably give that a serious rethink.

First off let me ask you this. Do you play PVP regularly on Official Servers?

Secondly yes its true that everyone has a right to work together but there comes a point where you have to consider balance. I fail to see how can you possibly justify allowing tribes of 70 players to exist when most servers are capped at 70 players. That is entire server for just one tribe. If each server could hold 1000 players like some other games do then a tribe size of 70 would seem more reasonable given the ratios.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, ranger1presents said:

Then substitute "small group" for the word solo, the point is the same.  You want your group to be protected from other groups that have managed to get larger than yours... and then accuse that larger group (which I might point out have the exact same tools and opportunities that your group has) of being cowards simply because they have been successful and gotten larger than your group.

They had no advantage over you, you have every opportunity they have, there is no reason you can't compete on that level.  But instead you wish to restrict their game play to bring them down to your level.

You should probably give that a serious rethink.

i dont read forzas post like u do at all. i think he looks at the game and sees some aspects as unbalanced and tries to make suggestions to improve that situation.

You seem to think he makes selfish suggestions to protect his interests and ruin others gaming experience.

Do you think the game is balanced @ranger1presents? What are your suggestions?

I too think the game is unbalanced regarding the adressed points and we should lead a constructive debate to improve this game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not everyone has the same chances tbh

people with families, work, commitments or little spare time, who still want to play a PVP game do not have the same chances, you're now tarring everyone with the same brush which I don't think is fair comment in this.

and don't tell him to go play PVE otherwise you can reimburse him for the monies spent on this product @ranger1presents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, natman said:

i dont read forzas post like u do at all. i think he looks at the game and sees some aspects as unbalanced and tries to make suggestions to improve that situation.

You seem to think he makes selfish suggestions to protect his interests and ruin others gaming experience.

Do you think the game is balanced ranger? What are your suggestions?

I too think the game is unbalanced regarding the adressed points and we should lead a constructive debate to improve this game

Good points natman. I've played this game a very long time and I do like the game but I think it could be so much more if some fairly simple to do changes were made.

In my opinion alpha/mega tribes make the game less competitive for all players and only not that its not even really all that fun being in one. See this thread to understand what I mean. Some mod has hidden it down in the dead end forum "Creative Chat" even though it is most definitively non fiction. Here is the link:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ForzaProiettile said:

First off let me ask you this. Do you play PVP regularly on Official Servers?

Secondly yes its true that everyone has a right to work together but there comes a point where you have to consider balance. I fail to see how can you possibly justify allowing tribes of 70 players to exist when most servers are capped at 70 players. That is entire server for just one tribe. If each server could hold 1000 players like some other games do then a tribe size of 70 would seem more reasonable given the ratios.

 

First, I've played in everything from Official servers (from solo to large tribes), to private servers (mostly PVP so far), to single player.

Second, the above is completely irrelevant to this conversation, despite your attempts to marginalize anyone who doesn't play exactly the same way you do.  Your "observations" on how the rendering system are well known to the entire player base as well as the development team, you're offering no new insights there.  While I prefer smaller group play myself in PVP environments in a variety of games, I'm no stranger to having several thousand players responding to my directives or directives that I helped to formulate. 

There are pro's and cons to groups of all sizes, with differing challenges to be faced.  Asking for the elimination of, or severe limiting of, a play style is rarely the right move.  Especially when you can do the exact same thing yourself if you choose, and doubly so when the game in question already provides you with the ability to play in exactly the way you prefer... away from those that play in other ways.

Perhaps you'd be okay with a serious suggestion that solo or small group game play be eliminated... and require you to join a mega tribe to be allowed to play the game.  That is exactly the same type of limitation you are asking to be imposed on others, a restriction of tribe limits.  One, I might add, that directly benefits your chosen style of play.  The only difference is you're asking for a drastic restriction in maximum members, instead of the (equally invalid) request for a restriction in needing a minimum number of tribe members to play on official at all.

As I've already stated, things can and most likely will change over time in ARK.  There is definitely room for improvement and discussion.  I'm simply pointing out that many of your observations are inaccurate, the problems you think will be addressed by restricting everyone's game play in the way you prefer actually won't be, and most of this has been discussed in detail long ago. 

Ideally every server could be tailored to a persons specific tastes in these matters, but then again that's why we have the option of private servers so that you can set up the limitations as you wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Octia said:

PC.

And multi servers are the reason these megatribes are able to exploit such ridiculous numbers in the first place. They have thousands of people working together.. It is just exploitative and clearly not what was intended.

Well I'm still holding down my smallish solo bases with no issues. I didn't mean that transfers aren't part of the reason mega tribes arose, simply that they also offer a powerful tool to small tribes and solos. I'm not saying what megas and what small/solos get is equivalent, just that there are important uses for each in regards to PvP.

And why is thousands of players working together exploitative and not intended, necessarily? Megas and mega alliances are the glaringly obvious result if not intended purpose of open transfers, and WC has made very few changes to restrict it so if anything the evidence points to "definitely intended." Personally, I think that's pretty raptoring cool to be honest, playing solo is like watching a crappy version of Feudalism develop while running around like a wild man in the bushes.

I also don't mean that there can't/shouldn't be some additional balance added, but regardless I think the social aspect of organizing and maintaining a large/the biggest team is a (the) major component to success in Ark PvP (as intended).

2 hours ago, ForzaProiettile said:

Excellent thread but let me elaborate on one of your points. You said you can't hide because everyone knows the hiding spots. That is true but what I would say is actually more significant is the small map combined with graphic exploits. Currently if you want to PVP properly in this game you MUST run your graphics on ultra low. Not many know about this but there is a code you can enter which tells the game your PC is total garbage (when it isn't) which forces the game to be nice to you and render less stuff. As a result what was once a thick jungle on very high will turn into a bunch of green painted trees with green painted ground. All the vegetation in between will be stripped as will the leaves and branches. Now if you combine this with a small map and the ability to do some aerial recon (trees missing in the jungle=base) its very easy to zip around the map in 10mintues or less and find the majority of bases.

Even if you don't have a flyer you can go on foot using the graphics trick and nothing will be hidden. I laugh when I see noobs running around with torches on at night while I'm standing 20m away and can see almost perfectly (game looks similar to a very overcast day). Now if you think free night vision is OP then there is the 'rendering structures' issue. Using the same graphic settings you can stare at someone base from a certain range and the walls and most structures won't render. What will render is the players and dinos inside. As a result you can see people walking around inside, seemingly standing on thin air. This is extremely handy for raiding, in fact just last week I watched some fellow in a large stone hut run around his base accessing the smith and stuff. He then stopped and stood still looking in his inventory. I gave him a minute then pounced. Sure enough he'd conveniently gone AFK. I went in there killed all his stuff, took the good stuff, dumped the rest then C4ed his foundations. 5 minutes later he was back singing in global.

^ This specifically is one of the biggest issues but enough of my rendering (I play on a potato) improved leading up to launch that I was hoping WC had figured out a way to fix this. It's horrible for all levels of players, but really kills so many decent hiding spots for small tribes and sols. Pretty much stuck wedging bases between non-destructible land is the only move. I've found several spots that usually aren't taken and seem to work pretty well but yeah totally lame that interiors can render in before exteriors and exteriors before covering trees and rocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, X111 said:

not everyone has the same chances tbh

people with families, work, commitments or little spare time, who still want to play a PVP game do not have the same chances, you're now tarring everyone with the same brush which I don't think is fair comment in this.

and don't tell him to go play PVE otherwise you can reimburse him for the monies spent on this product @ranger1presents

I didn't tell him to play PVE.  I told him he should consider it because they, and private servers, offer aspects to the game play that match his preferences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ranger1presents said:

Now you're reaching... a LOT.

If you prefer smaller tribes and more restrictive rules for combat there are plenty of options for you that do NOT involved changing the entire game for everyone else to match your preference.

I'm not sure why you keep clinging to this idea, as it has been pointed out countless times that it is blatantly untrue.  if you think that any Mega tribe communicates primarily with global chat I don't know what to say.

Discord, Teamspeak, Ventrillo, Skype, Carrier Pidgeon, Smoke Signals...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

15 minutes ago, ranger1presents said:

First, I've played in everything from Official servers (from solo to large tribes), to private servers (mostly PVP so far), to single player.

Second, the above is completely irrelevant to this conversation, despite your attempts to marginalize anyone who doesn't play exactly the same way you do.  Your "observations" on how the rendering system are well known to the entire player base as well as the development team, you're offering no new insights there.  While I prefer smaller group play myself in PVP environments in a variety of games, I'm no stranger to having several thousand players responding to my directives or directives that I helped to formulate. 

There are pro's and cons to groups of all sizes, with differing challenges to be faced.  Asking for the elimination of, or severe limiting of, a play style is rarely the right move.  Especially when you can do the exact same thing yourself if you choose, and doubly so when the game in question already provides you with the ability to play in exactly the way you prefer... away from those that play in other ways.

Perhaps you'd be okay with a serious suggestion that solo or small group game play be eliminated... and require you to join a mega tribe to be allowed to play the game.  That is exactly the same type of limitation you are asking to be imposed on others, a restriction of tribe limits.  One, I might add, that directly benefits your chosen style of play.  The only difference is you're asking for a drastic restriction in maximum members, instead of the (equally invalid) request for a restriction in needing a minimum number of tribe members to play on official at all.

As I've already stated, things can and most likely will change over time in ARK.  There is definitely room for improvement and discussion.  I'm simply pointing out that many of your observations are inaccurate, the problems you think will be addressed by restricting everyone's game play in the way you prefer actually won't be, and most of this has been discussed in detail long ago. 

Ideally every server could be tailored to a persons specific tastes in these matters, but then again that's why we have the option of private servers so that you can set up the limitations as you wish.

It is not about restricting players it is about balance. I play this game become it's a PVP sandbox game with no rules or limits on PVP. I wouldn't like to see some rules suddenly appear on PVP servers for instance dictating that you have to politely ask your opponent if he would like a war before your allowed to attack him. What I am proposing is not really any more different then the current "restriction" of 70 players. All I'm asking for is the value be changed to something more reasonable for the sake of balance.

It's still a restriction but its not a rule. That's a key difference the game still remains a sandbox just the box got a bit smaller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ranger1presents said:

Second, the above is completely irrelevant to this conversation, despite your attempts to marginalize anyone who doesn't play exactly the same way you do.  Your "observations" on how the rendering system are well known to the entire player base as well as the development team, you're offering no new insights there.  While I prefer smaller group play myself in PVP environments in a variety of games, I'm no stranger to having several thousand players responding to my directives or directives that I helped to formulate. 

Asking for the elimination of, or severe limiting of, a play style is rarely the right move.  Especially when you can do the exact same thing yourself if you choose

you seem to feel personally attacked here

nobody asks to restrict others to his own "exact" playstyle, its about balancing the game. why does it matter if the rendering trick is known to the player base or not? and that the devs know it is obvious... and congrats on having thousands of players responding to your directives.

Asking for elimination of playstyles can be the right move when they negatively impact the majority of players. If one, in theory, could do the same thing himself that doesnt make it more balanced

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ranger1presents said:

I didn't tell him to play PVE.  I told him he should consider it because they, and private servers, offer aspects to the game play that match his preferences.

but if that is not his intention and not willing to have the constant concern of having the server stopped for whatever reason is not why he purchased the game

the OP and following comments should highlight the "unfairness" imposed on players and are punishing them when joining servers or the lack of honour in official PVP servers which aren't governed.

I'm surprised WC haven't been investigated for inciting bullying within their game tbh and not responding to reports of it as that is what it comes down to even in PVE

either that or Kim Jong Un and his military staff play this game in their spare time and that type of behaviour is encouraged by WC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, natman said:

you seem to feel personally attacked here

nobody asks to restrict others to his own "exact" playstyle, its about balancing the game. why does it matter if the rendering trick is known to the player base or not? and that the devs know it is obvious... and congrats on having thousands of players responding to your directives.

Asking for elimination of playstyles can be the right move when they negatively impact the majority of players. If one, in theory, could do the same thing himself that doesnt make it more balanced

If we were apply to ranger1presents arguments to this game then balance changes like the Flyer Nerf should never have occurred because players could just tame their own flyers like everyone else. The Flyer Nerf would using his arguments be marginalizing players who just want to use flyers.

Balance is something we should cherish even if it upsets a few people as the Flyer Nerf did and probably still does. If you make a balance change and there's a lot of people with a vested interest crying about it then it's most likely a great change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ForzaProiettile said:

 

It is not about restricting players it is about balance. I play this game become it's a PVP sandbox game with no rules or limits on PVP. I wouldn't like to see some rules suddenly appear on PVP servers for instance dictating that you have to politely ask your opponent if he would like a war before your allowed to attack him. What I am proposing is not really any more different then the current "restriction" of 70 players. All I'm asking for is the value be changed to something more reasonable for the sake of balance.

It's still a restriction but its not a rule. That's a key difference the game still remains a sandbox just the box got a bit smaller.

It is very true, all sandboxes have boundaries.  The difference is the boundaries you are suggesting wouldn't have the effect you're looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ranger1presents said:

It is very true, all sandboxes have boundaries.  The difference is the boundaries you are suggesting wouldn't have the effect you're looking for.

I believe it most certainly would. Back in 2015 when there was no alliances and tribes were generally much smaller, the PVP was much better. PVP servers were PVP servers. People raided and slaughtered and murdered each other on a daily basis. Everyone hated each other and there was none of this overtly friendly attitude we see today on the servers which is largely a result of the big differences in tribe numbers. Smaller tribes kiss the ass of the bigger ones otherwise they die.

That is just my opinion of course but with almost 4000 hours on the clock I'd like to think I can back a winner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, natman said:

you seem to feel personally attacked here

nobody asks to restrict others to his own "exact" playstyle, its about balancing the game. why does it matter if the rendering trick is known to the player base or not? and that the devs know it is obvious... and congrats on having thousands of players responding to your directives.

Asking for elimination of playstyles can be the right move when they negatively impact the majority of players. If one, in theory, could do the same thing himself that doesnt make it more balanced

I don't feel personally attacked in a public debate.  All parties involved have been more or less respectful.

I'm also not the one claiming the development team has no idea the way the rendering in this game works, and how it affects PVP in particular.

The majority of players play on private servers, where they can set up rules substantially different than those in effect on official servers.  I"m merely suggesting he go where those rules are already in effect (or can easily be put into effect) instead of suggesting changes to the official servers that would dramatically affect how others are allowed to play the game.  All of the thousands and thousands of people that play official PVP because they enjoy being part of larger tribal structures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ranger1presents said:

It is very true, all sandboxes have boundaries.  The difference is the boundaries you are suggesting wouldn't have the effect you're looking for.

i also doubt that limiting the tribe size to 10 (as forza suggested) will stop megatribes. The reason why so many people band together would still exist (all servers in one huge cluster with no restrictions to transfer between them)

But it could be part of a solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...