Why Ark is fundamentally flawed as a competitive game.

[ForzaProiettile]

1 minute ago, natman said:

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.

Well if you limit it to 10 and then you limit how many allies they can have to just 1 or 2 then while its not perfect it certainly makes it harder to create these bubbles of passive servers where everyone gets along. Turrets for instance don't respect unofficial allies

With the current alliance setup I believe in theory you could have over 100 allied tribes which is quite broken when you analyse it.

[ForzaProiettile]

10 hours ago, Yster said:

Tribe size is the issue.. not the size of the map..

 

Honestly tribes shouldn't be more than 10 players. for PvP.. it a gamebreaker.. everyone knows it.. Alpha tribes knows this also.. thats why they are Alpha. 

Yep its the elephant in the room the devs don't want to address. Plain for all to see.

[natman]

8 minutes ago, ranger1presents said:

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.

i meant the majority of players playing the official vanilla game on official servers, which is the group the game should be balanced for primarily

And of course would balance changes affect peoples playstyles, but the way it is now it affects other peoples playstyles. Of course everybody calls something else balanced, but suggesting and discussing about it made the game what it is. And discussion means pros and cons to the suggestion, not saying bad suggestion go play unofficial

[Ranger1]

11 minutes ago, natman said:

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.

We are not completely at odds on that point. 

Large organizations, have significant strengths... but they also have (or should have) significant weaknesses as well.  Weaknesses that can be exploited.

Communication isn't really something you can disrupt in our modern gaming environment, although some game companies have tried (and suffered serious repercussions from the gaming public for).  However the game mechanics involving bringing the might of that large organization to bear can be crafted to expose those weaknesses, and make perfect sense in the process.

Take for instance the new delay in transferring materials between ARKS.  While this has irritated many (especially during the migration) it is having (and will continue to have) a noticeable effect on large organizations moving materials where they need them.  Especially when it comes to the ability to launch a massive raid.  There are some aspects to the mechanic that need to be (very carefully) tightened up, but that's the sort of thing that can have an actual tangible balancing effect on the game between large and small groups.

If a small group can hit hard and then get in and out quickly because they travel light (or set up stashes in advance), and a large group tends to get bogged down trying to bring vast quantities of material to bear against someone,  that's the sort of balance progression I support.  And if implemented correctly it's not something players can get around by employing 3rd party software.

I'm just saying that changes whose end result would only infuriate 10's of thousands of players, and still not achieve their goals, are not something that I can support.  Clever changes that seem logical, and have the desired effect, are more what I would personally like to see.

 

[Ranger1]

7 minutes ago, natman said:

And discussion means pros and cons to the suggestion, not saying bad suggestion go play unofficial

Again, I suggested he considered them as they already had what he is looking for.  This was before I realized he was insisting on a change to official servers, and not simply looking for a better gaming experience wherever it may already be found.

 

A quick P.S.:  My apologies for the somewhat sporadic replies.  At the moment I'm juggling several things here at this end, so slow to respond.

[Riggatrigga]

10 man tribe limits and no alliances I think would change the meta drastically enough that small groups and solo players can have a fighting chance.

[Teddansen]

5 hours ago, Octia said:

Yes, except to translate this to ark. Imagine football where one team has 11 players, and the other has 1. Imagine boxing with 20 people vs 1.. See the difference? There is balance in the sport, certain rules that keep it competitive. You see, for competition to exist, there has to be a chance for the other side to win; without that? There is no competition.

I do see the difference and I agree that actual competition requires some sort of regulation but I don't see ark as a competition. It's an open world sandbox that gives us the opportunity to do as we please, all the decisions we make are made by free will ... Unless ofcourse you join said mega tribe and find yourself doing their chores then that's your own fault. 

If it were cod or Overwatch or even Sotf I'd understand your complaints because they do have regulation where in PvP it's a free for all, if you want to live in a farm and raise dodo's you're welcome to do so or on the opposite side of the spectrum if you just want to kill everything in sight then that's allowed as well. 

If you choose to play on your own or in your own little group then you must accept that the odds are stacked against you. 

@ranger1presents a 20 v 20 boxing match would be insane .. I recently watched a 3v3 MMA fight on YouTube and my mind was blown 

[ForzaProiettile]

4 minutes ago, ranger1presents said:

We are not completely at odds on that point. 

Large organizations, have significant strengths... but they also have (or should have) significant weaknesses as well.  Weaknesses that can be exploited.

Communication isn't really something you can disrupt in our modern gaming environment, although some game companies have tried (and suffered serious repercussions from the gaming public for).  However the game mechanics involving bringing the might of that large organization to bear can be crafted to expose those weaknesses, and make perfect sense in the process.

Take for instance the new delay in transferring materials between ARKS.  While this has irritated many (especially during the migration) it is having (and will continue to have) a noticeable effect on large organizations moving materials where they need them.  Especially when it comes to the ability to launch a massive raid.  There are some aspects to the mechanic that need to be (very carefully) tightened up, but that's the sort of thing that can have an actual tangible balancing effect on the game between large and small groups.

If a small group can hit hard and then get in and out quickly because they travel light (or set up stashes in advance), and a large group tends to get bogged down trying to bring vast quantities of material to bear against someone,  that's the sort of balance progression I support.  And if implemented correctly it's not something players can get around by employing 3rd party software.

I'm just saying that changes whose end result would only infuriate 10's of thousands of players, and still not achieve their goals, are not something that I can support.  Clever changes that seem logical, and have the desired effect, are more what I would personally like to see.

 

In regards to communication personally I would love to see some kind of ingame requirement to use global chat and alliance chat. Maybe each tribe would require a satellite dish to communicate with each other for global chat. For alliance chat this would apply also but perhaps it could be intercepted/hacked so that others could read it. It would certainly add another strategic element to the game.

Also with regards to sneak attacks the instant ingame messaging that players get when their dino dies kind of makes it a bit hard if your a small tribe fighting a large one. You can blow up their structures but you can't really hit em where it truly hurts - their dinos.

[ForzaProiettile]

2 minutes ago, Teddansen said:

I do see the difference and I agree that actual competition requires some sort of regulation but I don't see ark as a competition. It's an open world sandbox that gives us the opportunity to do as we please, all the decisions we make are made by free will ... Unless ofcourse you join said mega tribe and find yourself doing their chores then that's your own fault. 

If it were cod or Overwatch or even Sotf I'd understand your complaints because they do have regulation where in PvP it's a free for all, if you want to live in a farm and raise dodo's you're welcome to do so or on the opposite side of the spectrum if you just want to kill everything in sight then that's allowed as well. 

If you choose to play on your own or in your own little group then you must accept that the odds are stacked against you. 

@ranger1presents a 20 v 20 boxing match would be insane .. I recently watched a 3v3 MMA fight on YouTube and my mind was blown 

The thing is this game already has various forms of regulation for the sake of balance. The recent changes to player stats for instance are a good example. I used to have a 268% move speed char on Official servers purely for scouting. I can no longer have that anymore because of balance. Tribes already have regulation with regards to tribe size. The current setting is 70. All I am saying is that figure be lowered, I'm not suggesting anything particularly new these regulations are already in the game.

[natman]

5 minutes ago, ranger1presents said:

We are not completely at odds on that point. 

Large organizations, have significant strengths... but they also have (or should have) significant weaknesses as well.  Weaknesses that can be exploited.

Communication isn't really something you can disrupt in our modern gaming environment, although some game companies have tried (and suffered serious repercussions from the gaming public for).  However the game mechanics involving bringing the might of that large organization to bear can be crafted to expose those weaknesses, and make perfect sense in the process.

Take for instance the new delay in transferring materials between ARKS.  While this has irritated many (especially during the migration) it is having (and will continue to have) a noticeable effect on large organizations moving materials where they need them.  Especially when it comes to the ability to launch a massive raid.  There are some aspects to the mechanic that need to be (very carefully) tightened up, but that's the sort of thing that can have an actual tangible balancing effect on the game between large and small groups.

If a small group can hit hard and then get in and out quickly because they travel light (or set up stashes in advance), and a large group tends to get bogged down trying to bring vast quantities of material to bear against someone,  that's the sort of balance progression I support.  And if implemented correctly it's not something players can get around by employing 3rd party software.

I'm just saying that changes whose end result would only infuriate 10's of thousands of players, and still not achieve their goals, are not something that I can support.  Clever changes that seem logical, and have the desired effect, are more what I would personally like to see.

 

yeeh the transferring delay prolly hits large tribes harder than small ones, and i welcome that, but it still doesnt change that much i think (well, it annoys many people )

Megatribes really dont have that many weaknesses a smaller tribe can use to its advantage in my eyes...

and yes, drastic changes that dont achieve their goals are stupid, we can agree on that but we obviously expect different effects from it (i wouldnt go for 10 members per tribe either, maybe 20-30, but just like forza, i think it needs to be adressed)

[ForzaProiettile]

7 minutes ago, Riggatrigga said:

10 man tribe limits and no alliances I think would change the meta drastically enough that small groups and solo players can have a fighting chance.

Yep. It worked great fine back in 2015. 10 players is more then enough to still be a 'large' tribe while not being so overbearing that no one else has a chance to compete. When you think about it a 10 man tribe is still 1/7th of the total pop of a server. That's quite a bit still.

[natman]

7 minutes ago, Teddansen said:

I do see the difference and I agree that actual competition requires some sort of regulation but I don't see ark as a competition. It's an open world sandbox that gives us the opportunity to do as we please, all the decisions we make are made by free will ... Unless ofcourse you join said mega tribe and find yourself doing their chores then that's your own fault. 

If it were cod or Overwatch or even Sotf I'd understand your complaints because they do have regulation where in PvP it's a free for all, if you want to live in a farm and raise dodo's you're welcome to do so or on the opposite side of the spectrum if you just want to kill everything in sight then that's allowed as well. 

If you choose to play on your own or in your own little group then you must accept that the odds are stacked against you. 

@ranger1presents a 20 v 20 boxing match would be insane .. I recently watched a 3v3 MMA fight on YouTube and my mind was blown 

i like the concept of ark being an open world sandbox as well, and i also dont want more restrictions than necessary, but wildcard has to take care that their base game is enjoyable to the majority and put restrictions in if needed

[SmokeyB]

5 hours ago, Octia said:

Well, i really mean megatribes, not the alpha of a server. I probably should have worded that better... I should probably edit it after this post actually..

Right, it is loser talk. So tell me, how do you defend against every inch of the island being covered by someone on a bird, or someone crashing a bronto through every tree on the map? Your fate is entirely in their hands. Either they don't look for you, or they do. If they look for you, they WILL find you. I don't know what alpha tribes you've been fighting, but i'd bet they didn't pillar an entire island so that the trees didn't grow anywhere, or have 100s of fully loaded turrets making the only means of attacking them a titanosaur. Sure, you kill a tame, but guess what? It is no loss because they have so many members.

Maybe if you're lucky things will all fall into place. But a tribe of thousands? Lets be serious here.

To say as a solo or small tribe you have "nothing to lose" is false. Infact, you have more to lose because you've had to work harder to get what you have. Each individual of a megatribe hardly has to work at all, they only need to put an hour in each and they'll still make massive progress beyond a solo due to sheer numbers. It is more frustrating to lose your stuff as a solo, because it is your responsibility to put it all back; with megatribes the frustration is dissolved among them because the work required to fix whatever was destroyed is shared.

You see, you say "blow up their gate" etc.. Turrets. Hundreds of fully loaded turrets. For me to get past that as a solo , i'd need to put in a ridiculous amount of hours. That means i'd have to survive under their watchful eye for a ridiculous amount of hours. With nowhere to hide, that just isn't happening. If you were able to hide long enough to hit a megatribe, they weren't looking for you in the first place. Don't look at it as what they might do, but what they could potentially do with their numbers; and what they can potentially do is make it impossible for you to hide by having someone constantly scout the island.

Let me remind you, we're talking about tribes actively looking to hog an entire server to themselves. And using steam as a means to see if any of their own are logged onto the server. They know you're their, and they look for you, and they root you out.

If your so set on living on a mega tribes server where they look for you the minute they log in,  then I suggest you make an outpost on a quiet less violent server,  tame turtles,  tame pteras and frogs,  and pre fab buildings and turrets,  then transfer over and attack them., see when the least of them are online,  then pull a bronto out the drop and tank their turrets,  then blow the gate. 

If a tribe is as strong as you describe then they have worked hard for what they have and you need to work just as hard to counter them. 

 

[SmokeyB]

11 hours ago, Yster said:

Tribe size is the issue.. not the size of the map..

 

Honestly tribes shouldn't be more than 10 players. for PvP.. it a gamebreaker.. everyone knows it.. Alpha tribes knows this also.. thats why they are Alpha. 

It's not even about tribe size,  it's about the time to get all the stuff, I'f a tribe is established and has all its raid tames it can dominate the server with just two people,  as the other tribes will never have strong enough tames to compete. On Legacy I solo wiped many ten man tribes with lvl 300 bred Gigas and quetzs,  even when they was online there is just nothing you can do against strong tames if you don't have your own.

 

[ForzaProiettile]

3 minutes ago, SmokeyB said:

If your so set on living on a mega tribes server where they look for you the minute they log in,  then I suggest you make an outpost on a quiet less violent server,  tame turtles,  tame pteras and frogs,  and pre fab buildings and turrets,  then transfer over and attack them., see when the least of them are online,  then pull a bronto out the drop and tank their turrets,  then blow the gate. 

If a tribe is as strong as you describe then they have worked hard for what they have and you need to work just as hard to counter them. 

 

In an ideal balanced game what you said might have been possible but it really isn't. A small tribe has no chance to directly take on one of these mega tribes. Even if they are offline you'll be there for hours just soaking their turret bullets and that's even if you got a good supply for high end Brontos. By the time you finally get into their base they'll already be back online.

I've been in a few of these mega tribes and I can tell you the window of opportunity to strike is very limited if it even exists at all. A lot of the players in these tribes are online for 10-15 hours a day and any half decent mega tribe will be running shifts so that a couple players are always online at any given hour. 

[Ranger1]

Agreed, but those changes must be very, very carefully considered.

Debate aside, if I may I'd like to share an observation that may shed some light on why my opinions have formed the way they have.  It centers around communication, and group size.

I have had the somewhat unique experience in my gaming history of watching player organizations of all types evolve.  From small groups of just a few players, groups that slowly grow to large organizations with literally thousands of members... groups that eventually implode or explode into nothingness again.

What caused the extinction of these groups?  Was it meeting a tougher, larger, or smarter opponent?

Yes, sometimes.  But just as often a large groups demise was due to their own structure, and unregulated communication.

Very large player organizations are usually composed of many smaller sub-groups, often based on their own original structures and personnel they acquired before becoming part of the larger group.  These smaller groups already have their own loyalties and preferences, which often "loosely" align with the larger organizations goals.

But it's often the case that open communication is available to every member of the organization.  This is tremendously helpful in many ways, but it is not uncommon for that large group to have sloppy or overly relaxed com protocols in place.  Everyone voices their opinion on anything and everything, and inevitably difference of opinion put more and more strain on the larger organization.  If you've ever listened in on the voice coms of a large raiding group you know exactly what I mean.  People begin second guessing each other, someone gets stressed and snaps at someone else, and that persons "mates" have a seriously bad reaction to it.

Open, unregulated coms exasperate internal pressures... and that has destroyed more large player organizations than I can count.  Almost more than actual combat has.

The fuel on that fire is the size of the smaller groups that comprise the whole.  Very small sub-groups that get angry and leave do so without making much of a ripple.  Larger sub-groups that find themselves at odds with each other tend to have the gravitas to pull other sub-groups into the issue and force the non-principals to choose sides.  These are the internal pressures that frequently tear large player organizations apart.

Draw from this wall of text what you will, but these are the reasons why my opinion on communications and group size are what they are today.  Though you may not agree with me, I hope you can at least understand why I think the way I do.

[ForzaProiettile]

4 minutes ago, SmokeyB said:

It's not even about tribe size,  it's about the time to get all the stuff, I'f a tribe is established and has all its raid tames it can dominate the server with just two people,  as the other tribes will never have strong enough tames to compete. On Legacy I solo wiped many ten man tribes with lvl 300 bred Gigas and quetzs,  even when they was online there is just nothing you can do against strong tames if you don't have your own.

 

The high end dinos you are talking about are a direct result of having a larger pool of players all working together. To get those perfect stats you need to breed, rebreed breed again and again. A small tribe simply does not have the time, manpower or resources to do that.

[ForzaProiettile]

28 minutes ago, ranger1presents said:

Agreed, but those changes must be very, very carefully considered.

Debate aside, if I may I'd like to share an observation that may shed some light on why my opinions have formed the way they have.  It centers around communication, and group size.

I have had the somewhat unique experience in my gaming history of watching player organizations of all types evolve.  From small groups of just a few players, groups that slowly grow to large organizations with literally thousands of members... groups that eventually implode or explode into nothingness again.

What caused the extinction of these groups?  Was it meeting a tougher, larger, or smarter opponent?

Yes, sometimes.  But just as often a large groups demise was due to their own structure, and unregulated communication.

Very large player organizations are usually composed of many smaller sub-groups, often based on their own original structures and personnel they acquired before becoming part of the larger group.  These smaller groups already have their own loyalties and preferences, which often "loosely" align with the larger organizations goals.

But it's often the case that open communication is available to every member of the organization.  This is tremendously helpful in many ways, but it is not uncommon for that large group to have sloppy or overly relaxed com protocols in place.  Everyone voices their opinion on anything and everything, and inevitably difference of opinion put more and more strain on the larger organization.  If you've ever listened in on the voice coms of a large raiding group you know exactly what I mean.  People begin second guessing each other, someone gets stressed and snaps at someone else, and that persons "mates" have a seriously bad reaction to it.

Open, unregulated coms exasperate internal pressures... and that has destroyed more large player organizations than I can count.  Almost more than actual combat has.

The fuel on that fire is the size of the smaller groups that comprise the whole.  Very small sub-groups that get angry and leave do so without making much of a ripple.  Larger sub-groups that find themselves at odds with each other tend to have the gravitas to pull other sub-groups into the issue and force the non-principals to choose sides.  These are the internal pressures that frequently tear large player organizations apart.

Draw from this wall of text what you will, but these are the reasons why my opinion on communications and group size are what they are today.  Though you may not agree with me, I hope you can at least understand why I think the way I do.

I can vouch for most of this. My experience in one of these mega tribes was similar to this. There was differing loyalties and certainly a lot of sub groups that owed their allegiances more to each other then group as a whole. During my time in the tribe there was an incident with one player basically stealing stuff and then trying to pin it on another player. Eventually he got caught out and was asked to leave and several players decided to leave with him since they had more loyalty to him then the group.

Communication during raids was woeful. Everyone would basically talk at once and most often about incredibly minor stuff of no importance. On more then one occasion a raid would go wrong largely due to mis-communication or lack of. There were certain individuals that were a bit shy and wouldn't say a thing unless you specifically asked them while others would just shout over everyone else.

As for group size though from what I saw people joined these large tribes because they wanted safety, luxury and ease. Most of the players that joined the mega tribe that I was in were clearly not there for PVP purposes. They wanted a safe place to build, farm and breed and level up for the most part. Unless you begged them to come help on a raid they wouldn't come. 

An interesting observation though on my part is that I've noticed over the years many of the tribes and players we raided/killed over and over at some point have joined one or more of these mega tribes. I guess its somewhat ironic perhaps but in many cases the perennial victim has become the big bully. It's odd seeing the guy that used to basically cry in global chat a year ago when you raided his base, join the server and talk big and tuff to everyone else because he's now in a much larger tribe. Even more strange is when you see that same player has joined the big tribe on another server and then made his same base in the same design in the same location with the same flaws as before.

 

It's somewhat amusing but oddly though I don't think I've ever seen a bad player join a big tribe and become a good player. They tend to remain the same. There are certain skills you'll never acquire from being in a large easy mode tribe that you may have got while in a much smaller outfit. Certainly discipline is sorely lacking in larger tribes. On my Discord during raids you don't talk unless you have something important to say. It keeps comms clear and free of pointless babble.Likewise you never type in global chat. Not ever. I've kicked several players from the tribe for that.

 

[natman]

14 minutes ago, ranger1presents said:

...

Draw from this wall of text what you will, but these are the reasons why my opinion on communications and group size are what they are today.  Though you may not agree with me, I hope you can at least understand why I think the way I do.

yes, definitely some interesting insights

[Teddansen]

6 hours ago, Octia said:

Yes, except to translate this to ark. Imagine football where one team has 11 players, and the other has 1. Imagine boxing with 20 people vs 1.. See the difference? There is balance in the sport, certain rules that keep it competitive. You see, for competition to exist, there has to be a chance for the other side to win; without that? There is no competition.

I do see the difference and I agree that actual competition requires some sort of regulation but I don't see ark as a competition. It's an open world sandbox that gives us the opportunity to do as we please, all the decisions we make are made by free will ... Unless ofcourse you join said mega tribe and find yourself doing their chores then that's your own fault. 

If it were cod or Overwatch or even Sotf I'd understand your complaints because they do have regulation where in PvP it's a free for all, if you want to live in a farm and raise dodo's you're welcome to do so or on the opposite side of the spectrum if you just want to kill everything in sight then that's allowed as well. 

If you choose to play on your own or in your own little group then you must accept that the odds are stacked against you. 

I'd suggest you adjust your play style 

[ForzaProiettile]

3 minutes ago, Teddansen said:

I do see the difference and I agree that actual competition requires some sort of regulation but I don't see ark as a competition. It's an open world sandbox that gives us the opportunity to do as we please, all the decisions we make are made by free will ... Unless ofcourse you join said mega tribe and find yourself doing their chores then that's your own fault. 

If it were cod or Overwatch or even Sotf I'd understand your complaints because they do have regulation where in PvP it's a free for all, if you want to live in a farm and raise dodo's you're welcome to do so or on the opposite side of the spectrum if you just want to kill everything in sight then that's allowed as well. 

If you choose to play on your own or in your own little group then you must accept that the odds are stacked against you. 

I'd suggest you adjust your play style 

I would argue that the PVP side of the game is very much the competitive side of the game where as PVE is the casual sandbox. So yes in PVP balance is very important to having a competitive game.

[Teddansen]

Okay so let's say they do implement a tribe member limit to ten per ..

Who's to stop a 70 member tribe from splitting in to seven groups of ten and achieving the same things they do now as one solid group ? 

One of my sons plays a dedicated server where they do two weeks of PvE then on the second weekend it changes to PvP so they have time to rebuild and such before getting in a fight again.. i like that idea except the host abuses his or her power once in a while .. if there were an official version like that I'd be there for sure

[hillbilly123456]

I'd never say ark was a competitive game. It's just a game full of backstabbing weasels.

[ForzaProiettile]

7 minutes ago, Teddansen said:

Okay so let's say they do implement a tribe member limit to ten per ..

Who's to stop a 70 member tribe from splitting in to seven groups of ten and achieving the same things they do now as one solid group ? 

One of my sons plays a dedicated server where they do two weeks of PvE then on the second weekend it changes to PvP so they have time to rebuild and such before getting in a fight again.. i like that idea except the host abuses his or her power once in a while .. if there were an official version like that I'd be there for sure

Is your suggestion taking into consideration the proposed limit on allies because that has to go hand in hand with the tribe player limit.

Now obviously nothing can stop a tribe making informal alliances but what it would mean is that they are far more vulnerable then before to attack and much weaker as general co-ordination is harder for them. Also auto turrets and the like would target their informal allies as much as they would the enemy, making base defense harder.When Pvping both allied and enemy players names show up as red and with no alliance channel, communication is harder too.

There is a whole range of benefits to this but the general idea is to make the game more competitive by encouraging frequent PVP between tribes as opposed to everyone holding hands.

 

[ForzaProiettile]

1 minute ago, hillbilly123456 said:

I'd never say ark was a competitive game. It's just a game full of backstabbing weasels.

That is the beauty of it. I call it strategy.