Ark 2 is a bad idea

[jamescoolcrafter15]

Ark 2 is a bad idea

ARK 2. It will most likely eventually come. Will it be good? Will it be bad? I'm here to answer that question, and the answer isn't that surprising. I, personally, don't agree with an ARK 2, and in this post I will share several reasons why.

1. The Main Game

ARK 2 would probably be fixing things that were broken in the main game, although this be something in ARK 2. Why shouldn't this be in ARK 2, because there shouldn't be any broken things in the main game, the main game needs to be fixed. Wildcard needs to stop adding content like new creatures and maps for a while, in the meantime, the main game should get small improvements. Updates that will not brake the game. These things shouldn't not be broken in ARK 2, they should not be broken in the main game.

2. Fan Suggestions and Controversy

In this area I will be looking at fan suggestions. I will only be focusing though on things people want in ARK 2, such as taming reworks. I will also be quoting several users.

Link: https://steamcommunity.com/app/346110/discussions/0/1741103267275366949/

Steam user Abyss wrote  "I wont be buying an ark 2 since they havent fixed the first one. I rather support a better game company" to which Steam user jacob99 responded "they cant fix some bugs of the old game, a new game would help fix that".

The problem is Wildcard can fix a lot of bugs. A main bug is meshing, one which has been in the game since EA. Ark has the ability to patch up holes in many maps and get rid of exploits, they can't eliminate it entirely, but they can still eliminate it quite a bit. If we are to assume ARK 2 uses Unreal Engine 4, then the ability to not remove it entirely would still be in ARK 2. Many other bugs can be eliminated entirely. We do not need an ARK 2 to fix bugs, we can fix bugs in the main game.

Link: 

Quote from @Eli the Forum Manager

"We don't have any plans for a sequel right now. But as has been stated, with the unprecedented popularity of the game, it would be a disservice to not expand on that through a sequel."

The problem with this is thinking that the growing community wants a sequel. The game is growing more popular, and we don't need a sequel to fit the growing demands of the fans. The problem is that Wildcard doesn't always listen to the fans, and this seems to be one of those times. If you check out posts about an "ARK 2" it seems the majority of the community doesn't want a sequel, but instead to fix and expand the main game itself.

Quote from @SmokeyB

"Ark 2, it will be the game we all wanted this time around. they would have to spend years to get this version of ark to where we want it, but a new ark 2 they can start from scratch and the code won't be so messed up, so they will actually be able to fix things that don't work as intended, plus there must be hundreds of things that they wanted to add to ark but it's too late, now they can."

The problem is we don't want an ark 2, we want to fix the main game. Sure they would spend years to get this game to be good, but during those years focus would shift to that new game and we would get no new content on the original game, further disappointing the fans. We also know for a fact that Wildcard gives false release dates, which, would, again, disappoint the fans even more. Also, what do you mean by "the code won't be so messed up".

Quote from @jaypak responding to @SmokeyB

"Smokey strikes again... good post m8. New engine, updated graphics, little less messed up... this game has huge potential and considering there's only like 25 of working on it they have done ok"

What mindset do you live with where you think a team of 25 can make this great dream game. They would need a way bigger team. By "updated graphics" how far are you pushing your limits? Ark already looks like real life, and with a small tweaks like less blocky terrain on certain maps and better lighting on console, the graphics would be perfect on the main game.

I'd love to hear opinions down below, may add them to this list.

[JustAnotherBeachNoob]

No. Hundreds of hours of work gone. Fix the ark we already have. Ark update 2.0, yes. Ark 2, no.

[Sphere]

42 minutes ago, JustAnotherBeachNoob said:

No. Hundreds of hours of work gone. Fix the ark we already have. Ark update 2.0, yes. Ark 2, no.

How will it be made profitable? Would you want to work for free? Some people do. I myself like to enjoy my hobbies. But if you have to pay your bills and a game studio is your day job, well that changes things. Going forward, one needs to think about how working X is going to pay bills. This is the reality of it, not meaning any ill will. ?

[yekrucifixion187]

43 minutes ago, Sphere said:

How will it be made profitable? Would you want to work for free? Some people do. I myself like to enjoy my hobbies. But if you have to pay your bills and a game studio is your day job, well that changes things. Going forward, one needs to think about how working X is going to pay bills. This is the reality of it, not meaning any ill will. ?

If they fix it a lot of old players will come back ??

 

@jamescoolcrafter15

1 hour ago, jamescoolcrafter15 said:

Also, what do you mean by "the code won't be so messed up".

The code of the game. WC has said they have found new and better ways to code some aspects of the game but it's nearly impossible to rewrite that code and not have it cost way too much both in time and money.

The idea behind an Ark 2 is the ability to inplement that code right off the bat. 

I'm definitely not for an Ark 2. I'd prefer a Season 2 if they would have more to the story. I wouldn't be against them starting a new cluster of servers that implemented the new code and allowed one way character only transfer to keep the continuity of the game. I'm not even sure if that's a possibility. 

As far as normal Ark. They'll patch what they can but I don't see how a complete overhaul would be profitable for them. It may bring in some new clients but probably not in a great enough capacity but a Season 2 or Ark 2 with the new coding and if there's a better engine may bring both old and new players back. I'd advise against another EA period for it though. I think the beta's they are running now could do the job if that's the direction they'd choose to go.

Still the best game I ever played so while I'm not completely satisfied with it and I've done more than my fair share of complaining, overall I'm still playing it in some capacity 3 years after I started it. Not a bad way to spend, I think, $60.

 

[EBONFOLD]

2 hours ago, jamescoolcrafter15 said:

Ark 2 is a bad idea

ARK 2. It will most likely eventually come. Will it be good? Will it be bad? I'm here to answer that question, and the answer isn't that surprising. I, personally, don't agree with an ARK 2, and in this post I will share several reasons why.

1. The Main Game

ARK 2 would probably be fixing things that were broken in the main game, although this be something in ARK 2. Why shouldn't this be in ARK 2, because there shouldn't be any broken things in the main game, the main game needs to be fixed. Wildcard needs to stop adding content like new creatures and maps for a while, in the meantime, the main game should get small improvements. Updates that will not brake the game. These things shouldn't not be broken in ARK 2, they should not be broken in the main game.

2. Fan Suggestions and Controversy

In this area I will be looking at fan suggestions. I will only be focusing though on things people want in ARK 2, such as taming reworks. I will also be quoting several users.

Link: https://steamcommunity.com/app/346110/discussions/0/1741103267275366949/

Steam user Abyss wrote  "I wont be buying an ark 2 since they havent fixed the first one. I rather support a better game company" to which Steam user jacob99 responded "they cant fix some bugs of the old game, a new game would help fix that".

The problem is Wildcard can fix a lot of bugs. A main bug is meshing, one which has been in the game since EA. Ark has the ability to patch up holes in many maps and get rid of exploits, they can't eliminate it entirely, but they can still eliminate it quite a bit. If we are to assume ARK 2 uses Unreal Engine 4, then the ability to not remove it entirely would still be in ARK 2. Many other bugs can be eliminated entirely. We do not need an ARK 2 to fix bugs, we can fix bugs in the main game.

Link: 

Quote from @Eli the Forum Manager

"We don't have any plans for a sequel right now. But as has been stated, with the unprecedented popularity of the game, it would be a disservice to not expand on that through a sequel."

The problem with this is thinking that the growing community wants a sequel. The game is growing more popular, and we don't need a sequel to fit the growing demands of the fans. The problem is that Wildcard doesn't always listen to the fans, and this seems to be one of those times. If you check out posts about an "ARK 2" it seems the majority of the community doesn't want a sequel, but instead to fix and expand the main game itself.

Quote from @SmokeyB

"Ark 2, it will be the game we all wanted this time around. they would have to spend years to get this version of ark to where we want it, but a new ark 2 they can start from scratch and the code won't be so messed up, so they will actually be able to fix things that don't work as intended, plus there must be hundreds of things that they wanted to add to ark but it's too late, now they can."

The problem is we don't want an ark 2, we want to fix the main game. Sure they would spend years to get this game to be good, but during those years focus would shift to that new game and we would get no new content on the original game, further disappointing the fans. We also know for a fact that Wildcard gives false release dates, which, would, again, disappoint the fans even more. Also, what do you mean by "the code won't be so messed up".

Quote from @jaypak responding to @SmokeyB

"Smokey strikes again... good post m8. New engine, updated graphics, little less messed up... this game has huge potential and considering there's only like 25 of working on it they have done ok"

What mindset do you live with where you think a team of 25 can make this great dream game. They would need a way bigger team. By "updated graphics" how far are you pushing your limits? Ark already looks like real life, and with a small tweaks like less blocky terrain on certain maps and better lighting on console, the graphics would be perfect on the main game.

I'd love to hear opinions down below, may add them to this list.

1:You are 100% right they can fix the bugs and if you look at the bug report forum there are plenty.. The problem for wildcard is MANPOWER...!!  No offense guys love your game but you need dedicated people to work on these problems and these problems ONLY.

Yes i understand you are still an indie company, But I'm guessing millions of people play ark all over the world and love the game to death. 2 to 3 more people dedicated just to the bugs and other technical issues would fix these bugs, yes at a trickle but 99% of ark players are patient and would accept these fixes one by one..  You guys are playing in the big leagues Wildcard, and for an indie company that's awesome.. You guys do what you can and i understand.

2: Hire more admins out of the positive player pools on official, These people can check the mesh for instances of exploiting or one to be the pillar janitor and clean up ALL the pillars blocking players from taming or getting basic weapons to defend themselves. Pillar blocking is against the rules but it seems little or nothing is done about it..

[ForzaProiettile]

I think ARK 2 is something that is bound to happen at some point and it will be an opportunity for the devs to examine their game and work out what made it highly popular in the early years and why it then declined.

Now in my opinion the early success of the game was due to several factors one of them was the fun factor. I can recall playing around 2015/early 2016 when there wasn't all these giant tribes floating about. The gameplay was fun, there was no TEK and frankly I don't think the game ever needed it but that's another story. Back then there was regular wars between mostly small tribes, just about every day me and my group would be attacking someone and likewise would be attacked in kind. Our base was mostly wood with a metal keep in the center, most bases at the time were pretty similar mostly wood.

There was a good sense of balance you could actually kill a tamed dino on foot without expending hundreds of rounds because the dino levels were not so ridiculous and breeding didn't exist. Also players for the most part hadn't yet worked out movement speed. It was definitely more of a skill based game back then as opposed to a more stats based one that it later became.

The point I am making is that the game didn't get better by adding more stuff, in my cases it got worse. Those Titan things they added recently are beyond retarded. They do not belong in the game and I really do understand what the devs were thinking when they added them other then that "bigger is better" and will sell more DLC.

If they make an ARK they should return to basics, go through their list of dinos and either weed out the ones that serve no purpose or alternatively make them useful, give them a unique role that will result in players using them. I would also recommend ditch the whole dino hierarchy system. It doesn't make for interesting gameplay when a select few dinos are way better then the others one ie Giga vs T-Rex and Spino and the flyers vs land dinos in general.

Also there a lot of small things that could be improved such as:

• K mode no longer lets you see under the map
• K mode is disabled on PVP servers
• Third person view is disabled on PVP servers
• Bolas effect time is reduced by at least 50% or let players push a combo of buttons to free themselves.
• Proper bullet physics for weapons instead of hitscan
• Scaling weapon damage vs dino level. They increased the dino levels from 30 to 150 but failed to do the same for player weapons.
• Balancing Flyers. Personally I don't think there is room for them in the game in their current form. They are too strong and have too many advantages in too many situations. At the very least game needs to either bring back the extra damage multiplier which made them fast but flimsy like they should be. Having flying tanks is not fun.
• The whip should not disarm melee players or players in general. It's broken the way it works currently, keep it as a just farming tool.
• Player stats. Player movement speed needs to be locked at 100% and likewise for dinos. Also stats like Health, weight and melee damage could be broken down into more specific categories to allow for greater fine tuning and customisation.
• Melee Weapons - the game desperately needs more melee weapons. Currently there is only really pike and sword.
• Balancing breeding. The 30% damage reduction buff for riding your own dino needs to nerfed. Bred dinos are already strong enough as they are.

[Jacira]

Ripping on a game that hasn't even been created yet, based on assumptions and hear-say.

For shame good sir, for shame!

[Aylana314159]

They already tried to create another game maybe not a direct sequel, but look how that flopped. Most of the player base is willing to buy DLCS and continue playing the original game even with the bugs.

 

If WC needs a revenue steam, they should improve and monetize Survival of the fittest.

[deedoubleu]

36 minutes ago, Jacira said:

Ripping on a game that hasn't even been created yet, based on assumptions and hear-say.

For shame good sir, for shame!

Why? It is a business. Make it faster, release sooner, spend less on development, feature cuts, day 1 patches, late friday builds... these things won't go anywhere no matter if it's original ark or ark9000.

Even if they spend 1-2 years on refactoring ark's code and get rid of all bugs it will just delay the inevitable. Rather sooner than later DLCs will bring new bugs. Major ones would be worked on while everything less serious fall in low-priority category which pretty much means it will never get fixed. Again they will have to work around those bugs and build on top of them and after some time ark2 will be just as buggy, except those would be brand new bugs and not current stuff that is being carried around since release.

[Aylana314159]

I just wonder how many Ark players would buy Ark 2. A good unofficial Ark community could last for years especially if they have access to the mod workshop and modded maps.

[ForzaProiettile]

1 hour ago, Aylana314159 said:

They already tried to create another game maybe not a direct sequel, but look how that flopped. Most of the player base is willing to buy DLCS and continue playing the original game even with the bugs.

 

If WC needs a revenue steam, they should improve and monetize Survival of the fittest.

Atlas failed because of the extreme lack of content and focusing on the wrong things. 

Would you play ARK if it had 5 dinosaurs but heaps of cosmetic items? I know I wouldn't. Well the Atlas devs thought 5 ships one of which was a raft, another which was equivalent to riding a Raptor was plenty enough for a naval game.

Then there was the balance issues, the largest boat in that game is also the fastest ship, has the most guns, the most health. Genius balancing logic. 

The nail in the coffin though was their decision to remove all PVP servers and instead turn them into glorified PVE servers. For only a few hours each day could you actually attack another tribe, the rest of the time their base had a magic invulnerability shield on it. The player numbers rapidly declined after this change...

Some of the Atlas devs were also ARK devs I sincerely hope they won't be re-joining the ARK team anytime soon. One bad game is more then enough we don't need an ARK 2 disaster.

[JustAnotherBeachNoob]

1 hour ago, Aylana314159 said:

I just wonder how many Ark players would buy Ark 2. A good unofficial Ark community could last for years especially if they have access to the mod workshop and modded maps.

It is highly unlikely I would buy ark 2. I have no bought any of the DLC maps yet, because I haven’t even beaten the overseer alpha difficulty. There is still tons of content for me to explore. Also, pvp servers would become great once all the alpha tribes left. 

[Jacira]

On 7/12/2019 at 12:45 AM, deedoubleu said:

Why? It is a business. Make it faster, release sooner, spend less on development, feature cuts, day 1 patches, late friday builds... these things won't go anywhere no matter if it's original ark or ark9000.

Even if they spend 1-2 years on refactoring ark's code and get rid of all bugs it will just delay the inevitable. Rather sooner than later DLCs will bring new bugs. Major ones would be worked on while everything less serious fall in low-priority category which pretty much means it will never get fixed. Again they will have to work around those bugs and build on top of them and after some time ark2 will be just as buggy, except those would be brand new bugs and not current stuff that is being carried around since release.

If you knew anything about gaming, you would understand bugs, in some capacity, are inevitable. And that fixing these bugs, can, in and of itself, produce new bugs. Some better and some worse than the bug that came before.

What you are suggesting is ridiculous not because Wild Card could not adhere to it, but because no gaming company adheres to it.

You should continue your mantra if you choose, but don't post here ridiculing Wild Card for it when you could be posting on any general gaming forum ridiculing all gaming companies for it. Step up your game if you're going to go there at least.

In the meantime, keep thinking you've got all the angles covered and no one else knows how to do their job...

 

[BlueberryJackal]

ARK2 CAN be a good idea, but it also could be a bad one. ARK2 is still an idea. As far as we know, WC isnt working on it. 

The reasons why it could backfire, are:

1. Mod support: Will it have Mod support? Im pretty confident. BUT, what about mods that are already available, like S+, Valguero or the stack mods? Are they compatible with the sequel or not?
2. If you buy ARK2, you probabyl wont have access to your old servers, and your old bases, tames, items etc.
3. But one of the main reasons: If ARK2 was a new updated version of the old game, it would have some fixed bugs, like meshing, map holes, etc. but it will have its own bugs, that are maybe worse and already fixed in the main game, like wiggly corpses or hitbox issues. At the end you notice that it has way more bugs than ARK and you move back to your old servers, which ends in a big money deficit for WC.

Conclusion: A second part would be nice, but WC isnt ready yet. Its better to fix ARK, so it is at a decent state with decent graphics and less bugs and performance issues. That way you can keep your tames, your mods and it is still enjoyable. Imo there should also be a fixing season, just a time period, where WC is giving its best shots to fix bugs and let the adding aspect rest for a bit.

[deedoubleu]

2 hours ago, Jacira said:

If you knew anything about gaming, you would understand bugs, in some capacity, are inevitable. And that fixing these bugs, can, in and of itself, produce new bugs. Some better and some worse than the bug that came before.

What you are suggesting is ridiculous not because Wild Card could not adhere to it, but because no gaming company adheres to it.

You should continue your mantra if you choose, but don't post here ridiculing Wild Card for it when you could be posting on any general gaming forum ridiculing all gaming companies for it. Step up your game if you're going to go there at least.

In the meantime, keep thinking you've got all the angles covered and no one else knows how to do their job...

 

You managed to completely miss my point.

People who make decisions know what they are doing. Their job is not making game better, but selling game better. Do less, earn more when possible.

Programmers know what they are doing, problem is they don't decide what they will be working on. Every bug get priority assigned to it. Crashes, blockers and other major ones get  attention first. Since new content often causes new bugs there will always be something more important to fix and low priority ones can collect dust in the back of bugtracker for years. 

I can't claim EVERY company works like that, only those I or my friends worked in. I have heard about studio that has a dedicated day in a week specifically to work on "low hanging fruit" bugs as guy called it, insignificant issues that require low amount of time to fix. Though evidently this is not the case for WC.

 

Now you can continue to misread my posts and get offended on WC behalf, though I would prefer to get actual arguments instead of generalized statements without any meaning like "If you knew anything" or "What you are suggesting is ridiculous ... because no gaming company ...".

 

TLDR: I assume WC devs and management know what they are doing but that won't help hypothetical ark2 to be any better than ark1 in the long tun.

[Jacira]

21 hours ago, deedoubleu said:

"though I would prefer to get actual arguments"

TLDR: I assume WC devs and management know what they are doing but that won't help hypothetical ark2 to be any better than ark1 in the long tun.

You're asking for arguments about a purely hypothetical situation. Not only has Ark 2 not been released yet, but it has never even been mentioned that they are working on an Ark 2. And you're here trying to undermine their ability to make it better than it's predecessor?

This whole argument is completely and utterly pointless and for anyone to suggest a gaming company never release a game, purely because it will have bugs, is asinine at best.

[caleb68]

On ‎7‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 5:05 AM, Jacira said:

If you knew anything about gaming, you would understand bugs, in some capacity, are inevitable. And that fixing these bugs, can, in and of itself, produce new bugs. Some better and some worse than the bug that came before.

What you are suggesting is ridiculous not because Wild Card could not adhere to it, but because no gaming company adheres to it.

You should continue your mantra if you choose, but don't post here ridiculing Wild Card for it when you could be posting on any general gaming forum ridiculing all gaming companies for it. Step up your game if you're going to go there at least.

In the meantime, keep thinking you've got all the angles covered and no one else knows how to do their job...

Game bugs are inevitable because, quite frankly, gaming companies don't test their products like they use to.  There was a time when you could buy a game and play it strait out of the box with no needs of downloading patches or updates in order to fix things that were broken in the initial release of the game.  far as fixing bugs and producing new bugs, this notes that the bug wasn't actually fixed, rather bypassed and updated with different coding that interfered with existing coding, and again, the reason new bugs were developed by the coding was due to lack of testing.

Here's a prime example of lack of testing that caused some major issues with a recent bug fix that was released to ark, we all remember the great server issue caused by the patch that wiped out many peoples characters, causing people to lose their dino's and bases do to their character being wiped by the bug that deleted the character information.  It not only effected Official Servers but Unofficial,  and Single player games.  This was a issue that if proper testing was done on the bug fix, could of been totally avoided but instead, a fix was done then rushed to push it out to the general public.

Wildcard isn't the only gaming company that is at fault with doing this, many of the larger game companies are just as guilty, rushing patches out without testing them to ensure they don't produce more issues instead of properly testing them.

 

in all honesty, speaking from a programmers perspective, the gaming markets isn't about quality anymore, its about quantity, Rushing out titles and fixes to get as much money as possible out of the gaming industry instead of producing quality games that allow the players to have a bug free experience that keeps them coming back.  Its really not the gaming companies fault however, its the gamers, the consumers of the products, they have become too lax and don't demand quality for their dollar anymore, as the old saying goes, a fool and their money are soon parted.

[deedoubleu]

4 hours ago, Jacira said:

You're asking for arguments about a purely hypothetical situation. Not only has Ark 2 not been released yet, but it has never even been mentioned that they are working on an Ark 2. And you're here trying to undermine their ability to make it better than it's predecessor?

This whole argument is completely and utterly pointless and for anyone to suggest a gaming company never release a game, purely because it will have bugs, is asinine at best.

*shrugs* As you said, not released, not even announced. Bashing and defensive arguments have same value and same chance to be true.

You are right on one thing - it's pointless. I can't and won't defend something I didn't say, so I leave you in company of your straw man.

[Jacira]

On 7/15/2019 at 12:19 AM, caleb68 said:

"There was a time when you could buy a game and play it strait out of the box with no needs of downloading patches or updates in order to fix things that were broken in the initial release of the game."

Although I don't disagree with your other points about gaming companies these days, you have to admit one thing. Games are a lot more complicated and intricate in design these days than they used to be. Playing something straight out of the box is a thing of the past, not just because gaming companies are lazier. But because games themselves are more advanced.

On 7/15/2019 at 3:01 AM, deedoubleu said:

*shrugs* As you said, not released, not even announced. Bashing and defensive arguments have same value and same chance to be true.

You are right on one thing - it's pointless. I can't and won't defend something I didn't say, so I leave you in company of your straw man.

I'm not defending anything except the ability to have a construction argument about something that actually exists.

The cornfields might need a trimming because I can't seem to find that straw-man anywhere. I never insinuated that you thought the argument was not pointless, I simply stated myself that the argument was pointless, as a summary, and not to refute anything.

Although it is deeply ironic you would accuse me of building a straw-man in the same post you claim I'm defending Wild Card in the same vain you're bashing them.

GG.

[ForzaProiettile]

On ‎7‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 10:21 PM, BlueberryJackal said:

ARK2 CAN be a good idea, but it also could be a bad one. ARK2 is still an idea. As far as we know, WC isnt working on it. 

The reasons why it could backfire, are:

1. If you buy ARK2, you probabyl wont have access to your old servers, and your old bases, tames, items etc.

A new game is always going to have a fresh start, why should players of a previous game get an enormous advantage of those that purchased the new one? That makes no sense

Also I am sure I am not alone in saying this but I enjoy fresh starts/wipes. They keep the game interesting and I would definitely not buy ARK 2 if they simply ported over all the current servers and didn't wipe them.

[SaltyMonkey]

45 minutes ago, ForzaProiettile said:

A new game is always going to have a fresh start, why should players of a previous game get an enormous advantage of those that purchased the new one? That makes no sense.

The fact that this can be said for pretty much every other game on the market speaks volumes that the poster has no clue what they were even suggesting with that comment.

[Aylana314159]

On 7/11/2019 at 11:40 AM, ForzaProiettile said:

Atlas failed because of the extreme lack of content and focusing on the wrong things. 

The lack of content is a general reason the most early access game fail. Players/consumers want to play game not be active testers. So devs try to add content before getting the game's foundations in place and properly working. This is what happened with Ark, still so many fundamental flaws.

 

As for Atlas development focusing on the wrong things, I didn't watch it closely after it launched without a single player mode. But from what I did see the devs were trying to set to apart from Ark, but didn't really know how.

 

 

I have said this before, ARk 2 would need to be flawless. I just don't see this happening in an early access environment. Maybe if WC kept Ark 2 development in a closed environment till it was sufficiently ready for monthly content additions. But at this point too many eyes are watching and early access is fickle.

[ThePryBar]

It's a bull whip, it should count as a melee weapon and it makes sense for it to disarm. Have you ever used a bull whip IRL, they are Fing terrifying. My friend owns one and he can easily disarm an attacker at 8 plus feet. 

 

@ForzaProiettile 

[Aushegun]

13 minutes ago, ThePryBar said:

It's a bull whip, it should count as a melee weapon and it makes sense for it to disarm. Have you ever used a bull whip IRL, they are Fing terrifying. My friend owns one and he can easily disarm an attacker at 8 plus feet. 

 

@ForzaProiettile 

You're friends with Indiana Jones!!  Wow!

[AngrySaltire]

Next Generation Ark

Not entirely sure if this has been discussed before on the forums but these are just some thoughts really. With the announcement of Ark Genesis, with the first part of coming this year in December (or so its said...) and the second part next winter, obviously development of Ark is planned for the long term. This timeframe however crosses over with the advent of the next generation of consoles, with Xbox Project Scarlett looking like releasing next Christmas and the PS5 around the same time. Obviously this isnt an issue with it on Steam.

What does this mean for Ark ? For example, to my knowledge Halo Infinite will release with the next gen console but will be playable on the current generation too, at least that is my understanding. I am assuming that for Ark it will transition across to the next generation, and, again I assuming, will be playable across both generations ( I dont know the case of the PS5). Or will Ark just become unplayable on the current gen ? Or even, will it not transition across at all. Saying all that I guess its early days yet to know these things.

Furthermore I guess you could forsee that the more powerful consoles could handle alot, so could open up more possibilities for the development of Ark on consoles. 

Just a few thoughts really.