So why are you allowed to place c4 on friendly structures?

[Guest loststonerboy]

2 minutes ago, Paroxyde said:

Traps doesn't recognize anyone, they trigger on everyone including yourself. And funny enough, works against others in PvE. 

But what if they didn't trigger on you, but did on everyone else? I'm just throwing the what if out there. Like it would be better.

But there is a lot of stuff that could be better. Especially for those of us on consoles. ??

[Paroxyde]

5 minutes ago, loststonerboy said:

But what if they didn't trigger on you, but did on everyone else? I'm just throwing the what if out there. Like it would be better.

But there is a lot of stuff that could be better. Especially for those of us on consoles. ??

Too bothersome, that would need to attach an ID to the trap, and with how spammable those are, the servers will RIP. 

[Guest loststonerboy]

6 minutes ago, Paroxyde said:

Too bothersome, that would need to attach an ID to the trap, and with how spammable those are, the servers will RIP. 

No no no... I'm not saying you have to attach an I'd of who you want it to hit.... It's more like you set it down... It won't go off on you. Anyone else even your own tribe members it will go off on. So you would have to have your own private storage area for your own personal stuffs/extra stores of stuff that even your own tribe mates cant go into.

Then in that case the other time stuff is shared is when people are online together... You go get what is needed from your stuff bring it out and give it to whom ever needs it.

[Glerian]

21 hours ago, covenantgrunt said:

Its a sandbox game with emergent gameplay, its about social interactions and how humans behave, and a fascinating game at that, Ark, especially on official PVP, is human nature in raw, unfiltered form and truly delivers on the Survival and Tribal theme. People complaining about insiding just dont get the type of game this is. How you treat and lead your tribe mates, how you handle diplomacy and politics with other tribes, your ability to form trusting relationships with players, they are a huge part of Ark. Removing things like being able to back-stab a tribe, being a saboteur or such, would make for a much less richer gameplay.

Ok, here is the problem though, in Ark there are no consequences. It's asinine to say that this is human nature, as it completely removes the human aspect from the equation. Ark is a great representation of what happens when a bunch of immortal a-holes with equal access to unlimited resources, and also dinosaurs, get into a **** measuring contest. There is nothing natural, human, or raw about it. Tribes in real life tend to cooperate because the threat of death, starvation, and destruction. It's much easier to trade your corn for another tribes metal, it's easier to trade your arrows for another tribes meat. 

See, in real life a single tribe is usually incapable of supplying ALL of their own needs. Tribes rich in one resources usually have a dearth of another. But in Ark, everyone has equal access to the same resources, the resources always replenish, and there are no consequences to being overly violent. If you were a tribe that went around attacking people, pillaging, and destroying resources then other tribes would team up and wipe you off the face of the earth. It happened many times. 

I don't think people supporting these particular play styles understand what kind of game this is. It is not a survival game of any kind, your survival is guaranteed, you are literally immortal. This game boils down to a resource hoarding base building game, like minecraft but with more pixels. And there are certain people who, when the consequences are removed, just like to troll others. And that's why the back-stabbing saboteur thing actually detracts from the richness of the game play, because there are no consequences. In reality if you get caught, you died. People don't tolerate spies, they usually torture and kill them. Game over, end of story. In Ark there is absolutely no risk involved. You lose nothing. You can create a character specifically for that purpose and it is 100% profit on the part of the saboteur and completely unavoidable for the victim. There is no recourse, no depth, no consequence, no reality to it. 

This game could easily eliminate that element, or reduce it at least, and would be a better built game because of it. 

[Paroxyde]

1 hour ago, loststonerboy said:

No no no... I'm not saying you have to attach an I'd of who you want it to hit.... It's more like you set it down... It won't go off on you. Anyone else even your own tribe members it will go off on. So you would have to have your own private storage area for your own personal stuffs/extra stores of stuff that even your own tribe mates cant go into.

Then in that case the other time stuff is shared is when people are online together... You go get what is needed from your stuff bring it out and give it to whom ever needs it.

Yeah... your ID... Or else, how would the trap "recognize" you? 

And honestly, when you inside, you just go with c4 as it leaves no proof it's you. You can even make it look like it was an offline raid. Steal ammos to make it look like they had soakers, destroy a bunch and then the electric system, then blow walls off until vaults. You can even say it looked like they had ESP and knew where to get the vaults! They rage on an imaginary cheater while you got yourself a lot of supplies. 

[Guest loststonerboy]

35 minutes ago, Glerian said:

This game could easily eliminate that element, or reduce it at least, and would be a better built game because of it. 

If they eliminated that element, meaning you die and stay dead. Or reduced it, as in made you wait days before you could ever respawn... People would not buy the game, not buy any dlc, and stop playing entirely. Therefore wildcard loses money.

So no they can't, and won't do either of those unless they are willing to have a game that will meet a swift permanent death worldwide.

[Guest loststonerboy]

15 minutes ago, Paroxyde said:

Yeah... your ID... Or else, how would the trap "recognize" you? 

And honestly, when you inside, you just go with c4 as it leaves no proof it's you. You can even make it look like it was an offline raid. Steal ammos to make it look like they had soakers, destroy a bunch and then the electric system, then blow walls off until vaults. You can even say it looked like they had ESP and knew where to get the vaults! They rage on an imaginary cheater while you got yourself a lot of supplies. 

But you wouldn't have to actually do it. The game already knows when you set something down.meaning it would know that your the one who put it there so not to react to you. 

I was talking about this from the point of someone trying to protect there own stuff, instead of the person trying to take it.

[Glerian]

14 minutes ago, loststonerboy said:

If they eliminated that element, meaning you die and stay dead. Or reduced it, as in made you wait days before you could ever respawn... People would not buy the game, not buy any dlc, and stop playing entirely. Therefore wildcard loses money.

No, you misunderstand, the element of insiding or sabotaging. Such as, not allowing the planting of C4 on your own tribes structures. I am, essentially, supporting the original posters premise. 

[Guest loststonerboy]

5 minutes ago, Glerian said:

No, you misunderstand, the element of insiding or sabotaging. Such as, not allowing the planting of C4 on your own tribes structures. I am, essentially, supporting the original posters premise. 

Ahh, my bad, I misunderstood what you meant.

[YaBoiCuckNorris]

2 hours ago, Glerian said:

Ok, here is the problem though, in Ark there are no consequences. It's asinine to say that this is human nature, as it completely removes the human aspect from the equation. Ark is a great representation of what happens when a bunch of immortal a-holes with equal access to unlimited resources, and also dinosaurs, get into a **** measuring contest. There is nothing natural, human, or raw about it. Tribes in real life tend to cooperate because the threat of death, starvation, and destruction. It's much easier to trade your corn for another tribes metal, it's easier to trade your arrows for another tribes meat. 

See, in real life a single tribe is usually incapable of supplying ALL of their own needs. Tribes rich in one resources usually have a dearth of another. But in Ark, everyone has equal access to the same resources, the resources always replenish, and there are no consequences to being overly violent. If you were a tribe that went around attacking people, pillaging, and destroying resources then other tribes would team up and wipe you off the face of the earth. It happened many times. 

I don't think people supporting these particular play styles understand what kind of game this is. It is not a survival game of any kind, your survival is guaranteed, you are literally immortal. This game boils down to a resource hoarding base building game, like minecraft but with more pixels. And there are certain people who, when the consequences are removed, just like to troll others. And that's why the back-stabbing saboteur thing actually detracts from the richness of the game play, because there are no consequences. In reality if you get caught, you died. People don't tolerate spies, they usually torture and kill them. Game over, end of story. In Ark there is absolutely no risk involved. You lose nothing. You can create a character specifically for that purpose and it is 100% profit on the part of the saboteur and completely unavoidable for the victim. There is no recourse, no depth, no consequence, no reality to it. 

This game could easily eliminate that element, or reduce it at least, and would be a better built game because of it. 

You typed so much but said so little? Seriously though the game is a huge insight into the human condition, how people interact when there isn’t the social construct forcing behaviour. You’re just salty af presumptiosly because of some rough insiding you received recently. Further more don’t say “In real life” when taking about the meta and mechanics of a video game.  

 

 

[Pixelnight]

Real question is when are they gunna fix the c4 bug

[Daedros]

Well, at least this isn't EVE Online. Insiding is a common, everyday strategy there, and can cost thousands of people an entire decade worth of work when it happens. https://www.pcgamer.com/inside-the-biggest-heist-in-eve-online-history/

 

In short, when you take away all the rules, Homo Sapiens are a sociopathic species that are so self-serving to the detriment of the whole, that we're doomed to extinction, joining the likes of Homo Erectus, Homo Heidelbergensis, Homo Denisova, Homo Florensius, and Homo Neanderthalensis.

[Glerian]

11 hours ago, YaBoiCuckNorris said:

Seriously though the game is a huge insight into the human condition, how people interact when there isn’t the social construct forcing behaviour.

Maybe the problem isn't that I said so little, it is that you lack the intelligence to understand. Consequence is not a social construct. Death is no a social construct. When you must back up your actions with your life, i.e. the human condition, your perspective changes. The reason this is not in any way an accurate representation of the "human condition" is, as I stated, it removes the human element. This would only be accurate or offer insight if ONLY the societal (not social, that is still there), element is removed. Since it removes the societal element AND the personal consequences, what it becomes is just a fun game. If you want insight there are plenty of ways to get it, this game simply isn't one of them. 

Also, you're on the internet, how do you manage to make up a word like presumptiously? The word you were searching for was presumably. Furthermore, or rather "further more", if you are going to criticize me for using the term "real life" in reference to a video game to rebut your ignorant opinion, then perhaps don't make ridiculous statements about the relationship to a video game and insight into the real life human psyche. 

 

[Moonie1]

Dont bother Glerian. As I said earlier, the dishonorable and unscrupulous cant or wont understand. Your post(s) was dead on. How you can afford to act in the real world and how you can act in games are two different things. The consequences for being a douche in Ark are almost nil, so the douches appear and even brag about their actions. They have to hide those traits in the real world because they are unacceptable and there would be repercussions. Everything you typed was indeed little to nothing to them because they cant or refuse to process what you pointed out because it would mean that would acknowledge things like honor and decency, sportsmanship and integrity.

[YaBoiCuckNorris]

Oh man, my bad! I mixed up presumably and presumptuous. Disregard anything I said, clearly I’m illiterate.

This is literally the video game version of the Stanford prison experiment. Look it up. 

And if I gave af I guarantee I could find plenty of spelling errors in your salty crybaby posts about honor and wanting to be one of king Arthur’s knights of the round.  

Also this guy gets it

 

On 9/15/2018 at 2:25 AM, Daedros said:

Well, at least this isn't EVE Online. Insiding is a common, everyday strategy there, and can cost thousands of people an entire decade worth of work when it happens. https://www.pcgamer.com/inside-the-biggest-heist-in-eve-online-history/ 

In short, when you take away all the rules, Homo Sapiens are a sociopathic species that are so self-serving to the detriment of the whole, that we're doomed to extinction, joining the likes of Homo Erectus, Homo Heidelbergensis, Homo Denisova, Homo Florensius, and Homo Neanderthalensis.

 

[Ranger1]

On 9/19/2018 at 3:03 PM, Moonie1 said:

Dont bother Glerian. As I said earlier, the dishonorable and unscrupulous cant or wont understand. Your post(s) was dead on. How you can afford to act in the real world and how you can act in games are two different things. The consequences for being a douche in Ark are almost nil, so the douches appear and even brag about their actions. They have to hide those traits in the real world because they are unacceptable and there would be repercussions. Everything you typed was indeed little to nothing to them because they cant or refuse to process what you pointed out because it would mean that would acknowledge things like honor and decency, sportsmanship and integrity.

Or those traits show up in a game with no consequences simply because its a game.  Honorable people frequently enjoy playing the bad guy in a game because it is an amusing departure from who they are in real life.  If you ruthlessly crush your sister in a game in no way does that indicate that you would happily do the same in real life if you thought you could get away with it.

You cannot make an accurate assumption about someone's moral code based on how they choose to play a game, especially when the are PLAYING WITHIN THE RULES.  Now if someone makes a habit of cheating in their favorite games you can sometimes be forgiven for making certain assumptions about their real life moral code, but even then that all depends on how seriously they are taking the game.  You'll find people that often cheat when playing against family or best friends because it's a point of humor between them to avoid getting caught, but they would never do the same with a stranger in a serious match.

The wisest thing would be to curb petty animosity for players that use ruthless (but still allowed) tactics against you.  Save it for that stranger that blatantly breaks the rules of the game to gain advantage, and even then keep it in perspective.  Just because he cheated to murder you in game doesn't mean they are a murderer in real life, it simply means they have a faulty moral compass when it comes to honest competition in a fairly meaningless video game.  Best to keep that firmly in mind.

Edit:  I almost forgot.  I have little doubt that WC could code the game so that it's nearly impossible for someone to inside other players... or make it so that C4 cannot be placed on friendly structures as the OP suggests.  Obviously they feel it makes for a more entertaining game when such actions are possible and must be guarded against.  Care must be taken when choosing tribe mates and allies, and even then it could happen... often tearing tribes (or mega tribes) apart when it does.  In fact the larger the tribe (or mega tribe), the more likely it will eventually happen.  Consider carefully before you decide whether or not that's a bad thing.

[covenantgrunt]

On 9/14/2018 at 9:11 PM, Glerian said:

Ok, here is the problem though, in Ark there are no consequences. It's asinine to say that this is human nature, as it completely removes the human aspect from the equation. Ark is a great representation of what happens when a bunch of immortal a-holes with equal access to unlimited resources, and also dinosaurs, get into a **** measuring contest. There is nothing natural, human, or raw about it. Tribes in real life tend to cooperate because the threat of death, starvation, and destruction. It's much easier to trade your corn for another tribes metal, it's easier to trade your arrows for another tribes meat. 

See, in real life a single tribe is usually incapable of supplying ALL of their own needs. Tribes rich in one resources usually have a dearth of another. But in Ark, everyone has equal access to the same resources, the resources always replenish, and there are no consequences to being overly violent. If you were a tribe that went around attacking people, pillaging, and destroying resources then other tribes would team up and wipe you off the face of the earth. It happened many times. 

I don't think people supporting these particular play styles understand what kind of game this is. It is not a survival game of any kind, your survival is guaranteed, you are literally immortal. This game boils down to a resource hoarding base building game, like minecraft but with more pixels. And there are certain people who, when the consequences are removed, just like to troll others. And that's why the back-stabbing saboteur thing actually detracts from the richness of the game play, because there are no consequences. In reality if you get caught, you died. People don't tolerate spies, they usually torture and kill them. Game over, end of story. In Ark there is absolutely no risk involved. You lose nothing. You can create a character specifically for that purpose and it is 100% profit on the part of the saboteur and completely unavoidable for the victim. There is no recourse, no depth, no consequence, no reality to it. 

This game could easily eliminate that element, or reduce it at least, and would be a better built game because of it. 

 

To say that there are no consequences for acting like an immoral asshole is not correct. There are consequences in-game that act as a deterrent to such behavior. As a mega-tribe player I can tell you that Arks endgame is 95% politics. The most important resource you have is not your dinos or weapons but your reputation and your network of allies and acquaintances. It is not easy to join a large, established tribe on official PVP and getting into a mega tribe especially can be matter of luck of knowing the right people, building relationships over months. And officials is a small world, where everyone knows everyone and word gets around. For mega tribes they have blacklist of known insiders and troublemakers, with their steam ids and personal information listed,  You inside a powerful tribe, and a whole alliance of tribes black list you and you find yourself going from flying Tek Tapejaras to back on the beach punching trees again because no one would recruit you again.

 

[Glerian]

On 9/22/2018 at 3:16 PM, YaBoiCuckNorris said:

Oh man, my bad! I mixed up presumably and presumptuous. Disregard anything I said, clearly I’m illiterate.

This is literally the video game version of the Stanford prison experiment. Look it up. 

And if I gave af I guarantee I could find plenty of spelling errors in your salty crybaby posts about honor and wanting to be one of king Arthur’s knights of the round.  

Also this guy gets it

 

 

It's not that you mixed up a word, it's that you made up an entirely new one.

Ok, two things here;

1. No this isn't "literally" like the Stanford experiment, as that would involve people payed to play prison guards. Try practically next time, you'll look less stupid.

2. It doesn't matter either way as the Stanford prison experiment has been debunked for years. Not only were the participants coached on the behaviors that were expected out of them, but many of the participants openly admitted to acting out for the camera. The whole thing was a hoax. 

The problem with your posts is not that there are spelling errors, made up words, and bad conjugations, it runs much deeper. It's about you being lazy. You're too lazy to defend your own statements, so you attack the person contradicting you instead. You choose to dismiss their point of view out of hand by labeling them as something you are opposed to, in this case a "salty crybaby". You're too lazy to read about the Stanford prison experiment and draw parallels, you name drop it and move on as if that gives your idiotic point of view any actual credence. Hell, this forums actually comes with a built in spell checker, which flashed red when you typed your made up word, but you were too lazy to correct it. You seem to think that if you repeat the same BS over and over again it will suddenly be true, because you're too lazy and arrogant to admit that your statement was ignorant. That would take effort. 

Lol that guy is ALSO wrong, a point proven by the fact that Homo Sapiens exist at all. If his statements were true, we wouldn't have lasted for hundreds of thousands of years. Cities wouldn't be a thing. Nations wouldn't exist. Good lord if you put even the most infinitesimal amount of thought into that statement it falls apart in a puff of logic. 

Try using that brain of yours for something other than simply holding your ears apart. Peace. 

[Glerian]

On 9/23/2018 at 9:18 PM, covenantgrunt said:

 

To say that there are no consequences for acting like an immoral asshole is not correct. There are consequences in-game that act as a deterrent to such behavior. As a mega-tribe player I can tell you that Arks endgame is 95% politics. 

There are two reasons that still doesn't actually matter. One is multiple accounts. Your character gets blacklisted, no problem, just make another one. And two, that only actually matters if your goal is to join a mega-tribe and go endgame. Which is not something everyone cares about. And if you do, then you just make a new character and use that one instead. Nothing actually matters in the virtual world because you are completely anonymous and your character is immortal. No action carries permanent consequences. 

[Redname]

On 9/23/2018 at 10:19 AM, Ranger1 said:

Or those traits show up in a game with no consequences simply because its a game.  Honorable people frequently enjoy playing the bad guy in a game because it is an amusing departure from who they are in real life.  If you ruthlessly crush your sister in a game in no way does that indicate that you would happily do the same in real life if you thought you could get away with it.

You cannot make an accurate assumption about someone's moral code based on how they choose to play a game, especially when the are PLAYING WITHIN THE RULES.  Now if someone makes a habit of cheating in their favorite games you can sometimes be forgiven for making certain assumptions about their real life moral code, but even then that all depends on how seriously they are taking the game.  You'll find people that often cheat when playing against family or best friends because it's a point of humor between them to avoid getting caught, but they would never do the same with a stranger in a serious match.

The wisest thing would be to curb petty animosity for players that use ruthless (but still allowed) tactics against you.  Save it for that stranger that blatantly breaks the rules of the game to gain advantage, and even then keep it in perspective.  Just because he cheated to murder you in game doesn't mean they are a murderer in real life, it simply means they have a faulty moral compass when it comes to honest competition in a fairly meaningless video game.  Best to keep that firmly in mind.

Edit:  I almost forgot.  I have little doubt that WC could code the game so that it's nearly impossible for someone to inside other players... or make it so that C4 cannot be placed on friendly structures as the OP suggests.  Obviously they feel it makes for a more entertaining game when such actions are possible and must be guarded against.  Care must be taken when choosing tribe mates and allies, and even then it could happen... often tearing tribes (or mega tribes) apart when it does.  In fact the larger the tribe (or mega tribe), the more likely it will eventually happen.  Consider carefully before you decide whether or not that's a bad thing.

You cant separate real life and videogame completely. If you are awful person, then you are awful in both worlds.

I agree they must give players almost total freedom. But that doesnt mean they can do everything they want cause is no against the rules. Well they can, but that will only show what kind of person they are.

For example a while ago my brother and I went to play to a pvp server. We were establishing our base and all. Then a guy with cheats starts following us and stalking us. He tranquilizes us while we were farming and drags our bodies around. Continue stalking and discussing with us and then break part of our base. What need he had to do that? He just wanted to have some fun. Well since its a fairly meaningless videogame like you said, we quit the server. We werent having fun in a war or a raid while a rival tribe was defending. In that case there are losses of dinos and material and we can accept that. In this case it was just an asshole having fun degrading us and boasting how good he was cause he could beat two noobs. I dont need to play a videogame that reminds me how evil and low people can be. I have real life for that.

This games encourages low tactics. You can farm and farm thousand of hours for what? Lost it in a night while you are disconnected cause the base defenses in this game are pure poop? Its no fun or challenging. Its no a good fight, they expect until you are disconnected so they can wipe you. You arent having fun so why play?

You can say suck it up and farm, build and tame again and then wipe them. No thanks, i didnt buy the game to play a farm simulator (break rocks and trees for thousands of hours and wait three hours to tame a dino that will be killed in a second for some asshole, how fun) or bragging about how i have the best base (yeah a d*ick size contest) which i consider meaningless by the way.

Another example. When i began playing in a pvp server (without knowing whats PVP was for) I built a wood base. Some guy in a Carno found it and smashed it to pieces. He had nothing to gain from it, i was very poor. I just had to see how my base was completely destroyed without a clue about what was happening and angry cause my two hours were spent for nothing (later i understood what PVP meant).

People enjoy pissing, degrading and messing with others. And this is all what this game is about. To have fun destroying others hard work in the lowest possible ways. To do what you cant do in real life. Cause they would do it too if they hadnt consequences. I dont believe in that separation from virtual to real life. People would kill and degrade others if they could get away with it just for fun.

 

My advice is going to play PVE and play with friends. This is a poor made game and PVP is trash

[Sphere]

On 9/14/2018 at 5:01 AM, Paroxyde said:

Unless you are on PvE. Insiding is totally okay. Actually, it's one of the standard way to play. 

Get in a tribe, earn trust for 6-7months, rob them blind when they are all off and if done correctly, you can still stay in the tribe and blame someone else. 

So in other words, kinda like divorce.

Did it just get dark in here?

[Sphere]

22 minutes ago, Redname said:

I dont need to play a videogame that reminds me how evil and low people can be. I have real life for that.

Are you married?

Holy ****, it really did just get dark in here. ?

[Havokpaintedwolf]

i aint encouraging anyone do it but well betrayal should be allowed in pvp

[TheGalaxyReaper]

I love how this has gone off topic and started hitting on real morals then went even further past topic and became a peeing match. “I’ll cage you” “no I’ll cage you” then they all went home shared a pudding cup and took a nap. Grow up kids it’s a video game and dilo happens. Insiding=bad, robbing people irl=bad, both still very possible and depend on human choice therefore perfect for a game about time and choices. 

[YaBoiCuckNorris]

20 hours ago, Glerian said:

It's not that you mixed up a word, it's that you made up an entirely new one.

Ok, two things here;

1. No this isn't "literally" like the Stanford experiment, as that would involve people payed to play prison guards. Try practically next time, you'll look less stupid.

2. It doesn't matter either way as the Stanford prison experiment has been debunked for years. Not only were the participants coached on the behaviors that were expected out of them, but many of the participants openly admitted to acting out for the camera. The whole thing was a hoax. 

The problem with your posts is not that there are spelling errors, made up words, and bad conjugations, it runs much deeper. It's about you being lazy. You're too lazy to defend your own statements, so you attack the person contradicting you instead. You choose to dismiss their point of view out of hand by labeling them as something you are opposed to, in this case a "salty crybaby". You're too lazy to read about the Stanford prison experiment and draw parallels, you name drop it and move on as if that gives your idiotic point of view any actual credence. Hell, this forums actually comes with a built in spell checker, which flashed red when you typed your made up word, but you were too lazy to correct it. You seem to think that if you repeat the same BS over and over again it will suddenly be true, because you're too lazy and arrogant to admit that your statement was ignorant. That would take effort. 

Lol that guy is ALSO wrong, a point proven by the fact that Homo Sapiens exist at all. If his statements were true, we wouldn't have lasted for hundreds of thousands of years. Cities wouldn't be a thing. Nations wouldn't exist. Good lord if you put even the most infinitesimal amount of thought into that statement it falls apart in a puff of logic. 

Try using that brain of yours for something other than simply holding your ears apart. Peace. 

You’re not wrong, I mostly pop on here when I’m waiting for imprints, sometimes while pooping, lazy is a fair assessment.I really don’t have the motivation to write a full on essay when someone offends me on the internet, I get my daily intake of fiber.

Seriously though how long did this take you? Like I could absolutely write you some parallels between the Stanford prison experiment and Ark, as well as rebuke your arguments, but like why? I would rather do like anything else with 15-20 minutes of my time.