Jump to content

sequel ARK: Survival Evolved 2 ?


Supertoto

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Vengecide said:

I would like a Ark to. I know ark isnt at its best in terms of performance overall but its still a great game to play there is no other games like Ark, Ark is one of a kind. But they surely rushed their dlcs out to fast. The game was only released in August as a full game. It hasnt even been a year yet. But i hope for an Ark sequel!

Note that Wildcard is still a young studio and they learn from their mistakes. Ark is (I think) their very first game so this is a very experimental game !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

By the end of this year, this great game will be over 3 years old and will be nearing the end of its development and life. It is only natural that at some point the developers will begin work on a sequel game one in which should capitalize on the things that made the original great but also improve on the many areas that were not so great. As a long time ARK PVP player that has been in just about every situation I would like to see the following implemented in a future sequel. I believe these changes would make the PVP side of the game far more interested, balanced and all round better.

PVP

Offline Raid Protection:

I think it is a great shame that the majority of PVP in ARK happens when the other side ain't around. Tactically it makes sense for the attacker but its not really exciting for either side. I would like to see Offline Protection partially enabled. By that I mean when a tribe is offline their structures should be more resistant say maybe 3-5x more resistant then if they are online. In addition to this I believe the game needs to implement some kind of "Home Base" token or flag that you would clip onto a wall in your base. This would mark all structures within a certain radius as part of your home granting it the benefits of offline raid protection. All other structures scattered around the map however would be still vulnerable. I think a limit of 1-3 tokens should be enough to allow a tribe to setup a couple bases around the map without exaggeration.

Render Issues/ Graphics:

Any ARK PVP player that has played this game long enough knows that if you set your graphics setting to "EPIC" your doing yourself self harm. While the game might look beautiful the guy running around with graphics that look like something from the 90s will have a huge advantage over you as stuff simply doesn't render in. To give some example with certain settings branches and leaves on tree's don't render in turning thick forests into dead stalks. This has the effect of making it extremely easy to find small "hidden" bases built in the middle of the jungle.  Another example is rocks, bushes and undergrowth not rendering in meaning a guy hiding behind a rock on a beach will think he is hidden but on my screen he is just crouching there in the middle of no where. Lastly and probably the most important exploit of these graphics setting is the ability to recon an enemy base. With the right setting you can see the inside of the base as the walls don't render in until you get closer. This lets you see what dinos they are inside as well as actually see players moving around in their base...

I understand the logic of allowing ultra low settings, in theory its so they can sell more copies of the game to players that running 10 year old PCs by rendering less stuff and showing less detail.

The problem is the majority of people these days running these settings aren't players with old PC's that struggle to run the game they are running these settings purely to get an unfair advantage. I have a PC with 32gb ram, a 1070 GPU and a CPU that is 2 years old and yet I still feel the need to run these crappy settings because if I don't I will be at a distinct disadvantage. My suggestion is that for PVP there be a minimum level of required detail to play on Official Servers. From what I can tell the difference between medium to ultra isn't that much compared to medium to ultra low. I would lock it at medium, a setting which still renders everything properly and I would also restrict the view distance so everyone is using the same setting.

 

Tribe Balance And Alliances

Mega Tribes and Tribe Size

One of the big failing points of ARK for me has to be the emergence of mega tribes and mega alliances. To me and many others they have ruined the game. Not only do they create inbalances but what was once a rich PVP environment now more resembles a kind of stalemate, as these large tribes for the most prefer not to fight each other as its a mutual lose situation since both sides more wealth they know what to do with.

It is not a exaggeration to state that the majority of ARK Official PVP servers today are part of one of the several mega alliances that currently rule the game. These alliances control multiple servers, giving no hope to any new player that tries to play on them and effectively turning those servers into PVE zones. Even on the flip side being in a mega tribe is neither fun or exciting. Its very mundane, you spend your days mostly farming and base building and when you do the rare battle the server becomes so laggy that its frustratingly unplayable. 

These mega tribes of upwards of 100 players are only possible because the game currently does not limit how many players can be in a single tribe. Likewise the game doesn't limit how many allies one can have.  This is especially odd given the nature of the game and stands out to many as a major balancing issue.

As most servers can only have 70 players at once I think a tribe limit of 10 at most would be reasonable if transfers were enabled in a future ARK. If there is no transfers the limit should be even less maybe 5 or so.

Alliances

In terms of alliances I remember before this feature existed and I can say without doubt PVP back then was more and you had more PVP because people were actually fighting each other like they should be. Now a days everyone prefers to hold hands. I would suggest an alliances limit of 1. The servers are just too small to have a larger number.

 

Dinos:

Balance

The balancing of the dinos is mostly ok with some exceptions. Personally I don't like the idea that a handful of dinos should be superior to everything else. In my view every dino should have a legitimate purpose other then just for eggs. In particular I would like to see the Giga matched up more evenly with the T-Rex and the Spino, so that rather then being outright superior it should be stronger in some areas while weaker in others in the way that the T-Rex is tankier then the Spino but not as fast and cannot swim.

The one area of the dinos that I think really needs to be looked at is the flying dinos. If you ask me they should not be in the game as they make the game too trivial and by their very nature unbalance land dinos. Even with the recent nerfs they are still too good and still too tanky for what they should be. They make it too easy to scout and move around the map. As well as this the maps are just not big enough in my opinion to support them and the bigger maps that are in the game like The Center and Ragnorok are barren deserts that lack vegetation which makes it even easier for flyers to scout the maps.

Egg System

The current system is a mess that forces tribes to tame many more dinos then they need to in order to be able to kibble tame the dinos they really want. I would suggest a simpler solution then requiring unique kibble for each dino. Instead the eggs would be graded in a tiered system and assigned a value. For instance a GIga egg would be worth 100 points, a Bronto 95 and at the end other of the scale a dodo egg might be worth 1 point. Each dino would required a certain total in order to fully kibble tame it. For example a Giga might require 1000 points worth which could be either 10 giga eggs or 50 Trike eggs. 

Taming

In terms of knocking out and taming stuff. The current system is ok but not great and is pretty boring. It would be nice to have it more interactive but only if the interactive part helps speed it up.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting i agree with a large portion of what you are saying but unfortunately there is way to much wriggle room for some of the issues you are saying.

 

ORP  As much as i would also love this to be a thing there is no room for it in a game like Ark. If you could use tokens to make a home base that has 3-5x defense it just means the Big tribes that farm 10-20k C4 a week would just use more C4 to blow in when you log out.

The other issue is lets say your home base is invulnerable and everything else around the map can be destroyed people would buy multiple accounts and spam them on Enemy servers to stop them from getting X or Y resource location. Or Dino/monster spawn locations. Unfortunately there just is no way for Offline raid protection to not be exploited.

 

Tribe/ Mega alliances: It is to late for this now the bonds have been made due to trading/breeding/protecting each others bases even if they made an ARK: 2 you would still have these people who love Ark and play in 300-500 man groups play in 300-500 man groups and either kick/invite people constantly or have people make 2/3 groups raiding from multiple angles on a base. To me as long as breeding/transfers are still in the game Mega alliances will always exist even if you take away the alliance function.

The other reason communication. Once people hear or see a Chinese in any game with guns it is OMG dude time to group up with every English speaker now.

 

 

My view on issues in ark

I need to state that i quit 8-9 months ago(probably 1 month after the new clusters came out) The reason i quit is the following:

 

Breeding: Once breeding became a thing everyone started talking to each other and trading lines of X or Y dino. Old enemies became new friends as long as they were trust worthy enough to hand over their best lines to the Alpha's.

Instead of fighting harmony came across the lands until someone illegitimately raided a base of yours or the servers Alpha's from under the map. This was always the start of a war from my experience on Legacy servers. Up until breeding became a thing everyone was still fighting now you get as many people as possible as long as someone can vouch for them to join your alliance to protect your lands. 

 

The other issues i have with ark are minor but contribute to why i decided to stop playing and not buy the aberration pack. PvP and PvE are different games IMO and balance should be different. Things like snails should not be in say PvP servers because it gives players 1 less resource to fight over so that you make less enemies and more friends on each server you go to. The less you need to fight with people over resources the less people fight unless they know they can win. Cakes and other sorts of dino healing tools are another issue there should be a risk to losing your breeds and that risk  is way less then it use to be due to healing abilities.

 

 

I could go on and on but 1 persons issues with the game is another persons favorite part of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I'd be really hesitant for any "Ark 2" to exist.  Ark is an amazing concept, and is really fun.  But they have so many issues that need fixed before they should EVER consider a sequel.

- The building is still mundane, doesn't make sense, snap points work like you'd never expect and waste resources repeatedly.

- Meshing, bugs, and cheaters aren't even being reprimanded, likely due to a unfilled wildcard staff.  I don't imagine they have a lot of people working, for sure not enough to maintain the current amount of servers.

- Performance is hardly reliable, FPS drops, freezing, crashes....

You guys need to strip Ark 1 apart first, fix it, and then I will pay for Ark 2.  That or make sure none of that exists in Ark 2 before release if thats what investors want. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im a bit lost as to what they could put in a second Ark Survival, another Island/Desert/Cave full of Dinosaurs. Really all that can surely be done is improve the graphics or the way it plays, anything with another land would just be DLC. And to be honest the player base is dropping now with more and more servers just empty Ghost Towns. Even the unofficial Pc servers has loads of empty ones just waiting on the subscriptions to run out.

Unless your in a decent tribe nearly all the solo players are quitting or just playing offline where they know their stuff is safe so no i think this game will just eventually disappear. That's just my thoughts by the way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I would buy Ark 2. Ark can be continued in two ways :

1. Continue the current game on the current engine with dlc maps and new dinos which could have some story or not. doesn t matter. there are many ark landscapes which could still be added and many dinosaurs/teksaurs/creatures

2. Build Ark 2 on a new engine: potentially better FPS, better graphics, some bugs can be fixed (I think the rendering of dinos before buildings is a core feature of the current engine and hence can t be fixed...)

and continue the ark story and do the same: add dlc with more landscapes and creatures...


tl;dr continue the game on current engine with no potential for better graphics/fps/bugfixing or continue on a new engine with great potential for improvement

personally I would choose the second and pay for a new game

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/30/2018 at 11:36 AM, AngryGamer666 said:

Im a bit lost as to what they could put in a second Ark Survival, another Island/Desert/Cave full of Dinosaurs. Really all that can surely be done is improve the graphics or the way it plays, anything with another land would just be DLC. And to be honest the player base is dropping now with more and more servers just empty Ghost Towns. Even the unofficial Pc servers has loads of empty ones just waiting on the subscriptions to run out.

Unless your in a decent tribe nearly all the solo players are quitting or just playing offline where they know their stuff is safe so no i think this game will just eventually disappear. That's just my thoughts by the way.  

It's not dropping though, this game still has over 50,000 players on a Tuesday Afternoon. It has remained consistent like that for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really understand why they would do a second game if the mechanics were the same. Rebuilding the entire game is fine and needed, but we don't need to pay for that if all the features are the same ? and it would split the playerbase even more...
I'm fine with paid DLC even if they don't add anything to the ARK lore, but what would be the point of making ARK 2 ? (serious question)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

i seriously feel like a sequal is a very bad idea the game is great ive had few bugs i have personally experienced and it has been heavily fixed in some areas watch some H20delirious videos on youtube during the early game days some dinos would fly off into the cliffs. my issue is that tribes and alpha tribes its hard to balance freewill and in my opinion if they make a sequal what will they use as a base engine? their current one? if so what will be difference? graphics?. why not do a massive tlc overhall of all their content as for "sequal" why not just impliment more features to base game aka add a procedurely generated world like pixark did perhaps make it go on into infinity and be unique to each server. for example make the ark area same for all servers but instead of that wall barrier thing just make it randomly generated one area may have a lake or pond and on another server that same area may be a crater or a wasteland or a forest and goes on and on and on perhaps within reason or infinite there are some games ive heard doing this one is called wild you play as a tribal shaman and the world goes on forever according to it. a sequal would make people have to buy a new game and lose all content they had on old one you cant get the notes unless content transfers over and if they do that may as well just make it a DLC for main game aka "the sequal" DLC. because a new game sounds like a waste of resources that nobody will really play if it has no reason to go back to it aka sequal dont need you to go get the notes you dont start on island you start on wherever new game takes place story ark changes greatly. and few would go to a buggy game with less good graphics just to play MONTHS worth of content kill bosses tame and breed dinos just to play the sequal so they know what the hell is happening. to me a sequal with better graphics and no way to transfer character or pets or replay the arks you started on and maybe even a new engine for the game just makes old game obsolete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
On 11/14/2017 at 5:48 PM, Martellus said:

Ok, so I will need to break my rule (avoid talking about other games) to go into this. 

At this point, the simple mention of a sequel is a bad idea. As many of you have pointed out, the game is not finished, by a long shot. This past weekend, my friend and I went Megalosaurus hunting. I was knocked out on the lower south cave by a spider below the ground. It was glitched. On the central cave, several animals are still spawning in / below the walls, this is unacceptable at this point. It should have been addressed along other issues.

Ark is indeed fantastic, I love the dinos, setting and yes, the official expansions and their contents. Another big positive is that I can run my server with the settings / adjustments I want, without fear of having the developer unplug the game like the average MMO/F2P market. As the Ark project currently is, I am satisfied with the business model they employed, I don't do microtransactions at all, and subscriptions is dangerous for anything other than Blizzard. I played Warhammer Online only to have EA unplug it, all hours wasted into something that never was. This is just one example, EA alone has several of those (Battleforge anyone?). Wildcard gave me control over my game, and I thank them dearly for it, its now a core thing for me regarding the survival trend. The ability to be independent, which warrants my respect and money. 

About a possible ARK 2: 

The problem with this line of thought as opposed to additional expansions / content beyond the current 3 is that it can divide the community. Ark can not run this risk, its success is heavily dependent on its community and their videos / blogs. 

  1. Base customers
    1. Some could migrate to a new installment.
    2. Most will not, especially not at release or another Early Access when cash is most dire. (my forecast, I for one am not going thru that EA stuff again)
  2. New customers
    1. With a new release, improved ways to approaching the challenges that Wildcard has now faced and learned do differently. New players could join in to check it out, but with a divided community and its inevitable toxicity this may throw off some new players.
  3. Content divided
    1. We now have lots and lots of content, tools, animals, etc... Why divide this? I would not accept anything less than 100% of the existing content on such new game. A practical example is Blood Bowl 1 vs 2 (Warhammer spin off), I personally don`t own either games, its not my thing, however what is interesting is that there was a lot more races in the first game something around 9-11 races/factions. They made the sequel and then the went back to something like 4 factions. Please forgive me, the numbers aren't exact, its been a while. The point is the community didn't supported the same way they did for the original. Its the feeling of setback and lack of inherited content.
    2. Again, Warhammer 40k Dawn of War. The 1st title had 9 factions with all the expansions, the second game had less than half (with its 2 expansions). It did have new twists and mechanics which worked well for the game, but they never built the second game up to the amount of factions from the first (the arena being the exception but its a different dynamic from the main draw). DOW3 came and... on a second thought, there is no DOW3, its something else.
  4.  Ark's Graphics still stand
    1. While Ark is by no means a For Honor/Assassin's Creed Origins graphic looking game, considering how much is going on it is still one of the best looking survival games out there. Some animals do look like plastic, but this is more a design choice than a technical one. Personally I look at the Megalosaurus, the sleeping animation, how it sounds, looks and it is pretty cool. So, the pitch for graphics is not that much of a drive at this time. 
  5. Epic Games with the Unreal Engine
    1. It is no secret that Epic has noticed the survival games market, inevitably adjusting the engine to include or be more friendly to this market, however at this point there is not justification to star over from scratch. 
  6. Ark could use additional expansions or general content
    1. This is were my technical limitations influence negatively my ability to comment. I don't know it is technically possible to do certain things, but since each expansion is its own map I imagine additional content that can interact across all maps is still possible. Expansions are kinda like sequels, but they preserve all historical content and experiences. Building on the existing world is what WoW has done so masterfully. I like The Island very much, but Scorched Earth definitely feels like a better overall map, its performance is also better (likely because there is less going on). My guess is that Wildcard will become more efficient with each added expansion and provide new experiences even they didn't think about when they started. 
    2. Since we now know for a fact that SPOILER
        Hide contents

       the Arks are in space, why not set an expansion in space with spaceships? Dino abduction anyone? 

        I know it sounds crazy, but that is just to point out the liberties that can be taken with each expansion. Ark's lore is expansive and open, unlike other franchises they have the liberty to go pretty much anywhere, this is a huge advantage a franchise.
  7. There is no logic to move to a sequel right now
    1. The community has its points when it comes to certain issues, be it technical prioritization or unfulfilled schedule commitments. Ark 2 would inevitably suffer a credibility check from the start which could impact short to mid term growth (financial growth especially).
    2. I am not really motivated to move all my hard earned things and bases to a new fresh experience. The problem with a grinding gameplay is that players become that much attached to things and thus a lot harder to start over. sometimes people do start over, I doubt most will or again, it will take longer for them to feel ready for the new thing.
    3. Expansions are a great way to build on this universe and keep cash flow. The Island is a huge game, it has 100s of hours going for it, it takes time to "beat it". But Scorched Earth is much smaller in scope, less unique creatures to tame while still providing enough novelty to be a game in its own right. The idea is to make sure players can "beat the expansion" by the time of the next release.  With so many games losing appeal to loot boxes and other crap, its a great way to stand out in a crowd as an alternative and gain market share. 

I completely agree, adding am ARK 2 would never work. The media would be split

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

So, I'm no programmer so correct me if I'm wrong, but, could the coding be so messed up from the start until now that a fresh game could help a lot of the issues they are having? It just feels like too much breaks when they have an update, that there has to be a bigger underlying issue. Obviously expanding on the current game would be preferred, but, if a new game/fresh start could fix a lot of the issues, I think it would absolutely be worth it. There's so much potential with this franchise, they just need some more experience in the studio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...