HeatherJo

Server Dino Cap Discussion

Joebl0w13

This is the place to discuss the per server dino cap mechanic. It's platform independent, anybody can post here. Feel free to talk about your particular server but lists of capped servers will stay maintained in their proper platform subforums.

Message added by Joebl0w13

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Midnight_ said:

You are approaching this like breeding is a bad thing. "Reckless breeding"!?!?! No such thing.

THAT IS THE GAME!

They made breeding a BIG part of the game. 500 tame cap is hard to maintain for any real breeder. 

The breeding is not the issue.

I'm not saying breeding should be restricted.  You latched on to two single words from the idea and ran with it!  And this is MY OPINION, but "reckless breeding" is a megatribe hatching 40-50 wyverns/rexs/whatever for the sole purpose of selling off, for no other reason.  I know, I know:  This is how they want to play the game, blahblah, you can't tell them not to do that.  But it happens on every server.  It is NOT the only problem, and the soulbind-upon-imprint is NOT the only solution, but its just one we came up with.

So, that's my piece on "reckless breeding".  I know you don't agree with me, and that is perfectly OK!  But for the sake of the point if we could move past those 2 words, I'd like that.  And I know you want to impress that breeding is never "reckless" because its a big part of the game, you said that above, I know breeding is important.  I know you will say there is nothing wrong with breeding, and I get that.  But discussing solutions instead of semantics might be a better use of our time  :)

The only reason I suggest this (and say that the term is less important than the idea) is because of the solution WildCard will come out with.  SOMEONE will feel targeted.  Noobs, solo-server-veterans, megatribes, SOMEONE will feel like they are in the crosshairs (in a punative sense) of the fix, whenever it comes.  Put yourself in opposition of one of those factions of players that will potentially feel targeted, and try to solve it from that angle.  Does that at all make sense?

Just trying to get weirdly creative in how they MIGHT fix this.  I am 99.999% sure I am wrong, but just getting weird with ideas.

Edited by TheDonn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Midnight_ said:

Heh 😸 Thats a lot of "maybes".

My point is they are well paste the point being good responsible devs who listen to the community. At least for this issue. Unless there is in some way an actual good reason that adding more servers is not good or possible for whatever reason. A reason other than "I would rather spend server money on a new sports car."

 

I believe the reason why we are not seeing more servers yet is because they are already spoken for....  "Abberation"  and the following " ? " dlc

If WC were to release more servers now... could they realistically have enough money to support the next two dlc's in the long term???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2017 at 6:39 PM, Vrallox said:

@AngrySaltire @yekrucifixion187

I never mentioned the griefers using the demolish option. If you're in a tribe then you can destroy structures the same way you can destroy animals you don't like. Pile on the C4 and blow them sky high. There was a thread a few months ago made by someone complaining about that very thing. A new member to the tribe had explosives stashed somewhere, waited for the other tribe members to all be offline, and wiped them all out. On a PvE server no less.

Explosives aren't the only method, any weapon or damaging tool will do, but they're the most fun for removing animals I no longer need and they'd also work great on structures. I think they're also the fastest way to take down the stronger structures without having access to the demolish option.

Didn't even consider this. Playing PVE I find and keep one C4 BP and one detonator BP but never use it so that, grenades, etc. didn't even cross my mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darkwushu said:

The state of kibble is really the problem, long time players at dino cap each just to maintain kibble farms makes this a problem. 

Kibble farms while they take some taming slots are only one of the reasons for server cap, but not the main one. Even if kibble (and imprinting) system gets overhaul, players will just tame/breed more to fill emptied slots.

18 hours ago, Darkwushu said:

This game is all about building, surviving and taming stuff. I dont understand how a game designed to let you tame stuff, wont let new players tame. Please fix this as soon as possible, in its current state I would not encourage anyone to start playing this game. Thanks!

There is no easy fix to the problem and players are part of the reason - for every solution they will find workaround that fully or partially negates that solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m using my wallet to show my displeasure with the server caps. We capped on our rag server with the 8x charity event, then went back down, and went back up with the 3x event. We’ve floated in and out of server cap since then. 

If this was at least addressed at any point from WC since the issue arose about three weeks after launch, I would consider purchasing aberration. But I believe the same issues will arise with that map. Too few servers, overcrowded, and dino cap only a month or two down the road. 

I don’t have a great fix (lower the tribe cap again?), but it’s a stifling issue that has driven new and old players away from the game mode. I just don’t get why we can’t get any form of communication or strategy/vision from WC on the issue. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, flamron said:

I’m using my wallet to show my displeasure with the server caps. We capped on our rag server with the 8x charity event, then went back down, and went back up with the 3x event. We’ve floated in and out of server cap since then. 

If this was at least addressed at any point from WC since the issue arose about three weeks after launch, I would consider purchasing aberration. But I believe the same issues will arise with that map. Too few servers, overcrowded, and dino cap only a month or two down the road. 

I don’t have a great fix (lower the tribe cap again?), but it’s a stifling issue that has driven new and old players away from the game mode. I just don’t get why we can’t get any form of communication or strategy/vision from WC on the issue. 

So... events that increase breeding rates are culprits. No surprise here, to be honest. And players are constantly asking for more of these "events" and then complain about caps.
:Jerbmad:  / The solution is simple but players wont like it.

Edited by DarthaNyan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DarthaNyan said:

So... events that increase breeding rates are culprits. No surprise here, to be honest. And players are constantly asking for more of these "events" and then complain about caps.

The solution is simple but players wont like it.
:Jerbmad:

Caps were hit well before any of the bigger events. All the events did was speed up the process on any servers that were behind on breeding. Our server was behind because we went through 5 weeks of constant crashes and rollbacks until they upgraded the hardware. 

So it’s not a contribution to the issue, but only expedites the issue, not cause it. 

Edited by flamron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people keep clinging to the "kibble rework" as if it has anything at all to do with the dino cap issue. The only thing the kibble rework was supposed to do (and all it will actually do) is make it so that we don't have to have useless dinos sitting around that we have to maintain and all the do is eat poop and pop eggs now and then. 

If ever they do rework the kibble system the dino cap issue will NOT be affected in any significant way. If a tribe is at or near 500 and the kibble rework makes it so they can kill off 100 egg layers....they will DEFINITELY tame and/or breed another 100 dinos.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DarthaNyan said:

There is no easy fix to the problem and players are part of the reason - for every solution they will find workaround that fully or partially negates that solution.

The "solution" should be negated if it means stopping people who are playing a dinosaur taming/breeding game from taming/breeding.  

 

12 hours ago, DarthaNyan said:

So... events that increase breeding rates are culprits. No surprise here, to be honest. And players are constantly asking for more of these "events" and then complain about caps.  The solution is simple but players wont like it.

The shortage of servers is the reason.  As has been stated, taming and breeding is one of the big things we do in Ark, event or no event.

 

6 hours ago, Midnight_ said:

I don't understand why people keep clinging to the "kibble rework" as if it has anything at all to do with the dino cap issue. The only thing the kibble rework was supposed to do (and all it will actually do) is make it so that we don't have to have useless dinos sitting around that we have to maintain and all the do is eat poop and pop eggs now and then. 

If ever they do rework the kibble system the dino cap issue will NOT be affected in any significant way. If a tribe is at or near 500 and the kibble rework makes it so they can kill off 100 egg layers....they will DEFINITELY tame and/or breed another 100 dinos.  

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Player against Player

From what i see so far people have a weird idea about the problem, and propose the most odd solutions.

The problem is not us guys, its not us taming, its not us breeding, as stated in the first lines of the game description "tame, train, breed & ride dinosaurs in a living ecosystem ".

Its the main feature of the game, so by no mean we should stop doing that as a solution, and by no mean you solve a problem that involves a restriction with more or even drastic restrictions.

The design is broken from the start, the servers are made to support 70 people at one time (emphasis on one time), which is the main flaw, as in unlimited amount of players can join build and tame on each server, i presume there are hundreds at this point on each server, if servers were limited to 70 players, and new spots to become available when someone's base would auto-decay then part of the problem would have been avoided.

You cant blame new players for taming 3 dodos and then quit/move to another server, and you cant blame big tribes for mass taming/breeding, since its game's main feature + its a must to be able to complete the end game scenario (ascension). And that is, and cant/shouldn't  be denied to anyone, the main goal of the game.

Above all this there are the caps, the 500 tames per tribe cap, which in my opinion is the only math they did right in all this, since its enough to reach/beat the end game scenario, in the case of 70 players per server leads to a server total owned dinosaurs possible of 70 x 500=35.000.

But then, they trimmed that number 5500 which is way less then it should be for the minimum amount of players per server scenario, not even considering the real scenario where hundreds of players join one server.

And this leads to all the problems, and is by no mean our job as players who bought the game to care about the required server power and all that so we can enjoy what the game promised when we bought it, its totally WC's problem.

Even more, its not our job as players to not play the game as we want so other players may play it as they want, since its not written either in game's description or in EULA that at some point we need to stop taming/breeding, or limit ourselves from taming/breeding so other players can enjoy this feature.

 

2. Aberration

Aberration new servers will not solve anything, it will be even worst, because players know now that the cap will be reached at some point and they wont be able to tame/breed, so the first thing everyone will do is reserve spots on the new servers by taming 2-300 pugs each. Leading to reaching the cap in, i presume 1-2 weeks.

 

3. Footnote

Some math in case you got me wrong when i said the 500 tribe cap was something they did good, they didn't think that number, they just put a random number that came to mind, and for the players that like to throw around new cap numbers WC style.

Considering after that they put a 20 dinos limit to the boss fights and a 50 dinos limit to the ascension.

So, some math would be to get to those 50 dinos you can bring to the ascension would be:

at least 2 dinos (presumably rexes, intentionally exculding any other dino because i'm doing the minimum setup, from who to breed those 50)

+2 dinos to make the kibble to tame them,

1 yuty,

1 daedon + 2 dinos for kibble to tame it,

30 dinos for the imprint kibble,

1 dung beetle for the advanced crops,

1 oviraptor,

1 wyvern and 1 weight quetz for quality of life,

4 dinos for wood, thatch, stone, metal,

atleast 2 dinos for exploring the ocean,

1 otter for thermal insulation when going/living north.

So in case i missed something else vital this leads to the minimum of ~100 dinos (~140 if you wanna have 1 of each creature in game too) x 70 leads to 700 (9800 for the collectors), which is still over cap not even considering that not only 70 players join 1 server.

And this is by no mean a viable scenario unless they put a dictator GM on every server would kill any dino we obtain above the threshold/outside that minimum pattern.

I find it simply stupid to even think of this, why and who would play a game under dictatorship and such harsh regulations?

 

TL:DR I'm bored at work and pissed off by the cap and some players approach to it so i wrote a wall of text for others like me.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Quarinah said:

they trimmed that number 5500

9500*

26 minutes ago, Quarinah said:

Above all this there are the caps, the 500 tames per tribe cap, which in my opinion is the only math they did right in all this, since its enough to reach/beat the end game scenario, in the case of 70 players per server leads to a server total owned dinosaurs possible of 70 x 500=35.000.

Well, the game was not designed for 70 solo-tribes to begins with. For example, you need ~7,500 engram points to learn everything and a maxed character (level 115) has a total of ~4,200 so the minimum would be 2-players tribes. Meaning that you at least need to divide your number by 2 here if you want it to be somehow accurate according to the game multi-player design. Which is a bit less than twice the current server limit meaning that a standard tribe should ideally be 4 players: (70 / 4) * 500 = 8,750 dinos. However, I think the real problem is players that are hoarding thousands of dinos across alt accounts/characters to bypass that limit.

Edited by invincibleqc

Share this post


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

9500*

Well, the game was not designed for 70 solo-tribes to begins with. For example, you need ~7,500 engram points to learn everything and a maxed character (level 115) has a total of ~4,200 so the minimum would be 2-players tribes. Meaning that you at least need to divide your number by 2 here if you want it to be somehow accurate according to the game multi-player design. Which is a bit less than twice the current server limit meaning that a standard tribe should ideally be 4 players: (70 / 4) * 500 = 8,750 dinos. However, I think the real problem is players that are hoarding thousands of dinos across alt accounts/characters to bypass that limit.

I will continue to militate that by no mean is players fault, since they are using the game mechanics as intended and made available by the game, if they added dinos to their tribe using cheats, codes, third party softwares, if they would have gained more then the 500 dinos limit by shady means, then it would have been players fault.

Having multiple accounts means buying the game multiple times, and having more then one character is a game feature.

But to be as realistic as possible, WC are right in what they do, because they learnt something from alpha, they learnt that a year from now 80% off the accounts will stop playing, and there will be only a few tribes left on every server, and that doesn't affect them in any way because they already cashed in from those accounts, buying more servers or improving current ones on the other hand will be detrimental for them a year from now, since they will have to pay forever for almost empty servers.

Guess all good comes for those who wait?

Share this post


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

9500*

Well, the game was not designed for 70 solo-tribes to begins with.

Sure it is. Nowhere in the games terms of service does it require you to join with a minimum of one other player. And for engrams, they created mind wipes to enable the lone person tribe to rework their engram chart. So it’s absolutely designed for 70 solo tribes. But it’s also designed for one 70 person tribe as well. Or even a 200 person tribe. Is there a cap on the amount of people in a tribe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-10-27 at 1:43 PM, xracer98 said:

Invest in a private server. You can do what you want,when you want.
Game play can be set to your liking..
We too, got sick of laggy servers, capped servers etc.
Been running a private server and taming, raising like crazy..
With the group that we play with, its a very stress free environment.

This is what I did and I am very happy about it.   10 slots nitrado server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, flamron said:

Sure it is. Nowhere in the games terms of service does it require you to join with a minimum of one other player. And for engrams, they created mind wipes to enable the lone person tribe to rework their engram chart. So it’s absolutely designed for 70 solo tribes. But it’s also designed for one 70 person tribe as well. Or even a 200 person tribe. Is there a cap on the amount of people in a tribe?

I think he meant the servers are not design to handle that load.

imo, on the game side, that thing underperform so much, I can say its not design to handle multiple bases and hundreds of dinos pack together, regardless of server performance and regarless of how much power the unit that runs the game has.

Edited by Herbapou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another thing to keep in mind and i will start with a screenshot from nitrado, hope i'm allowed, else i'll remove it and anyone can use the link on the bottom of the page and check for themselves how much a year is a 70 slots server.

Untitled-1.thumb.jpg.7c35f5a170b15c8be2d045572b5a8ace.jpg

Now as we can all see a 70 slots server costs 520 euros per year (i'm not implying that WC use these exact settings/servers, its just so we have something realistic to work with)

70 accounts mean 60 euros x 70 = 4200 euros one time only payment that WC gets.

If we divide these 4200 by 520 means that WC will be able to keep up a server for 8 years with 0 profit.

Considering they wanna keep half of that income, means they can keep up a server for 4 years.

 

Kinda starts to make sense why they don't do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Quarinah said:

Here's another thing to keep in mind and i will start with a screenshot from nitrado, hope i'm allowed, else i'll remove it and anyone can use the link on the bottom of the page and check for themselves how much a year is a 70 slots server.

Untitled-1.thumb.jpg.7c35f5a170b15c8be2d045572b5a8ace.jpg

Now as we can all see a 70 slots server costs 520 euros per year (i'm not implying that WC use these exact settings/servers, its just so we have something realistic to work with)

70 accounts mean 60 euros x 70 = 4200 euros one time only payment that WC gets.

If we divide these 4200 by 520 means that WC will be able to keep up a server for 8 years with 0 profit.

Considering they wanna keep half of that income, means they can keep up a server for 4 years.

 

Kinda starts to make sense why they don't do anything.

If WC had any common sense during the negotiations with Nitrado, they bargained for a much better rate, and may even be profiting off of people renting servers from Nitrado for ARK. You’ve also go to think that Nitrado is making money off of that price as well, so figure anywhere from 30 (way low end) to 100% profit built into that number. So the cost structure for WC is significantly different than a single user buying a server as they get to deal in bulk/volume which drives costs down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, invincibleqc said:

Once your character reaches max level (115), you can only mindwipe once and then you are stuck with your stats/engrams.

At level 100 I still have most of my engram points unused. With blueprints I just don't need to spend many points. Only real reason to use a mindwipe is to reset stats and I haven't done that in over a year thanks to having a well-rounded character.

Right now the tribe system is just absolutely horrible. There's no real incentive to having multiple people in a tribe in PvE and the game is actually pushing people away from inviting others. Such a shame. If people would group up into tribes more it'd help servers avoid hitting the tame cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now