Jump to content

Poppet

PVE Declaration of War Banditry

Recommended Posts

The easy solution is to change something about it, the hard solution is to hope that people educate themselves like @SaltyMonkeysuggests.

You shouldn't always see things out of your perspective and think of it as the only solution.

I don't use any alliances on PVE and if someone wants to trade with me, I'll make them a little place to build a very small building with a bed and vault but others use it and most people do alliances.

Because most players on PVE use the alliance system without fear in their mind, which should be the right way (You shouldn't have to fear about such things on PVE)

the best solution would be to change the system just a little bit.

The war system is an old useless leftover mechanic with no use on PVE other then griefing like most old mechanics are. (Teleporting wild/corrupted dinos).

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 10:54 AM, SaltyMonkey said:

All I see is a bunch of cry babies having a tantrum over pixels.

…..says the guy that not too long ago was crying because those pixels had pixilated letters arranged in a way that mad him sad.  "tHoSe  tRiBe nAmEs mAkE mE  sAd"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2019 at 11:54 AM, SaltyMonkey said:

All I see is a bunch of cry babies having a tantrum over pixels.

Why are you such a jerk? 

People are complaining because it needs to be FIXED. If you don't complain, it wont be fixed.

This is an easy to solve problem

Make every tribe ACCEPT the war declaration to join the war effort on a tribe by tribe basis.

If Evil Tribe A declares war on Evil Tribe B and Good Tribe C is allied with A, only A and B should be at war unless C WANTS to help.

  • Thanks 1
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Fukushu said:

The easy solution is to change something about it, the hard solution is to hope that people educate themselves like @SaltyMonkeysuggests.

You shouldn't always see things out of your perspective and think of it as the only solution.

I don't use any alliances on PVE and if someone wants to trade with me, I'll make them a little place to build a very small building with a bed and vault but others use it and most people do alliances.

Because most players on PVE use the alliance system without fear in their mind, which should be the right way (You shouldn't have to fear about such things on PVE)

the best solution would be to change the system just a little bit.

The war system is an old useless leftover mechanic with no use on PVE other then griefing like most old mechanics are. (Teleporting wild/corrupted dinos).

 

Well you think the war mechamism is useless but me and many friends think its perfect, we can have war when we want instead of have to guard base 24/7. Pure pve is to boring in the end and why breed hundreds of dinos if never try them in battle 😁

If ppl study the rules and mechanism the griefers and scammers would have harder to harass people.

Bad people always will try to do evil things and for example making tribe with a bad guy insiding should not be argument to remove optiin to make tribe. Its all about thinking of what can happen if you do something and learn the rules of the game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Well you think the war mechamism is useless but me and many friends think its perfect, we can have war when we want instead of have to guard base 24/7. Pure pve is to boring in the end and why breed hundreds of dinos if never try them in battle 😁

If ppl study the rules and mechanism the griefers and scammers would have harder to harass people.

Bad people always will try to do evil things and for example making tribe with a bad guy insiding should not be argument to remove optiin to make tribe. Its all about thinking of what can happen if you do something and learn the rules of the game.

Games get changed, rules get changed.  Even one of the oldest games in the world, Go, has had rules changed.  Komidashi wasn't implemented until around the 1930s.  For a game that's over 2500 years old, they still change the rules sometimes.

 

Ark's rules have changed over time as well,  there's no reason to think they can't be improved.  Forcing all wars to only be declared by an admin or leader of an alliance makes perfect sense for RP and PVE.  I think the biggest question for me is the philosophical and practical application w/ PvP.  I'm not quite sure how it's used right now by them.  I'm sure if they do use it, they would be the ones most effected by such a change.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Rogero said:

Well you think the war mechamism is useless but me and many friends think its perfect, we can have war when we want instead of have to guard base 24/7. Pure pve is to boring in the end and why breed hundreds of dinos if never try them in battle 😁

If ppl study the rules and mechanism the griefers and scammers would have harder to harass people.

Bad people always will try to do evil things and for example making tribe with a bad guy insiding should not be argument to remove optiin to make tribe. Its all about thinking of what can happen if you do something and learn the rules of the game.

👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

For sure an optional war commitment just wouldn't work.  You can't have  an alliance with someone who doesnt want to participate in defending against a war declaration.  It's gotta be all in or nothing.  I think even the admin or owner function leaves out scenarios that play out bad for members in an alliance w/out war power.

  Either an alliance is for war or not might be a better solution, having it spelled out in it's inception.  So if an alliance is created for war purposes, everyone in it is exposed and can help an ally in a war.  But if we could select a different alliance that has all the features but no war help, then noone in that alliance can be dragged in unwillingly into war.  That leaves it best as an owner function that gets locked after it's selected and created.

I dunno, the more I think about it, the scenarios that play out get muddier and muddier for me. which is why i'm gonna back away from it being an admin function and restrict it to a one time selection for the owner that would also show to the members that war was an open possibility giving them the choice to stay or leave.  Maybe add a cooldown after joining that a war can't be declared for 15min after a new ally joins.

Edited by GrumpyBear
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's not up to wildcard do deal with this because it is impossible for them to do so instead i think that you should trade with traders who have good reputations that have been doing trades for a long time. or do your trading through them to another tribe so you only have to let the trader be around your base and not the other tribe 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, wolfstallion said:

it's not up to wildcard do deal with this because it is impossible for them to do so instead i think that you should trade with traders who have good reputations that have been doing trades for a long time. or do your trading through them to another tribe so you only have to let the trader be around your base and not the other tribe 

the reason they use it for trading is because dropping off 300k dust is a pain in the ass for everyone involved. But it is true we can all do other things.  Just dont' see how it's impossible to have a setting to make alliances for war or for peace.  Even in pvp, maybe you want to ally w/ someone to say I'm not gonna attack you.  But maybe you want to be in an alliance where you all got each others backs.  I dont' see a problem having an option, and I don't think it's impossible to do.

There are already set conditions a survivor must meet to initiate a war, we are talking about adding a condition that is completely optional and in no way eliminates or modifies the war function of the game.  It does add functionality to the game though.  Plenty of things in ark have multiple uses outside of intended uses.  There's no reason to not add simple functionality to a game, unless you can see a reason it would be impossible to do?

Edited by GrumpyBear
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/10/2019 at 11:56 AM, Pipinghot said:

1) Never trust anyone named "123", especially on PvE, that's a absolutely sure sign that they're a griefer.

2) Never use an alliance on PvE for something as casual as trading, it's just a bad idea. Alliances are dangerous, you should only use them for people you already know and trust.

wow that hurts man :(

Edited by Kjenneth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

1) Never trust anyone named "123", especially on PvE, that's a absolutely sure sign that they're a griefer.

I know people who do this to avoid the griefers on their servers.  If you log in w/ a recognizable name, then the jerks will be able to get an idea of your schedule and know when to have the corrupted pteras ready to go when you get on.  123 works both ways for griefing and proctecting ones self from griefers.

2) Never use an alliance on PvE for something as casual as trading, it's just a bad idea. Alliances are dangerous, you should only use them for people you already know and trust.

That is true, but let me give you a little true story from a little over a year ago.  Right after I had mated the best spino hp available to the freshly caught 425melee.  We both end up w/ the clusters best hp/melee combo and we get to work separately afterwards.  about 3 months after having the market cornered on best available......  One of his tribemates gets in a spat with his girlfriend.  She proceeds to give everything of his away to random people.    You are right alliances are dangerous, but girlfriends are too.  If every alliance has to submit to the exact same danger because we can't ask for a quick little check box to click, then i guess that's the way it has to be. 

I'm still waiting to hear, why it's a bad idea though, or impossible to do.  I'm not even sure we are disagreeing really w/ the different positions people have taken so far. In the real world we have alliances between countries where one country will fight w/ the other, and at the same time other alliances that countries won't go to war with an ally being attacked.  I don't see how the functionality will kill or maim Ark.  It seems pretty complimentary.

 

I for one like alliances in pve just so I can talk w/ people w/out shouting it all out in global.  Sometimes I would prefer to announce a high lvl spawn to people I know instead of everyone on the server, and at the same time, I would like to know that for sure, someone in that tribe doesn't have a spat with his girlfriend and she then goes out and burns her bridges and my time.

Edited by GrumpyBear
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

1) Never trust anyone named "123", especially on PvE, that's a absolutely sure sign that they're a griefer.

I know people who do this to avoid the griefers on their servers.  If you log in w/ a recognizable name, then the jerks will be able to get an idea of your schedule and know when to have the corrupted pteras ready to go when you get on.  123 works both ways for griefing and proctecting ones self from griefers.

That's true, but I still wouldn't trust one. On PvE, a "123" player is more likely to be a griefer than the victim.

2 hours ago, GrumpyBear said:

2) Never use an alliance on PvE for something as casual as trading, it's just a bad idea. Alliances are dangerous, you should only use them for people you already know and trust.

 

That is true, but let me give you a little true story from a little over a year ago.  Right after I had mated the best spino hp available to the freshly caught 425melee.  We both end up w/ the clusters best hp/melee combo and we get to work separately afterwards.  about 3 months after having the market cornered on best available......  One of his tribemates gets in a spat with his girlfriend.  She proceeds to give everything of his away to random people.    You are right alliances are dangerous, but girlfriends are too.

Come on now, that's a silly example, one of those problem is an intrinsic part of the game and the other has nothing to do with the game.

That would be like saying, "Hard drive crashes are dangerous too" or "Power surges are dangerous too". Those two things can also cause you to lose everything, if you can't fix your computer before your stuff times out, but like the girlfriend example they have nothing to do with the game.

Share this post


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

I'm still waiting to hear, why it's a bad idea though, or impossible to do.

I never said it is "impossible", don't argue with things I haven't said.

As for why (I believe) it's a bad idea, that's just my view of risk management. The system in ARK makes it too easy to get victimized by allies, which is evidenced by the number of complaints and threads from people who have been abused by alliances. I agree with others that the root cause of the problem is that the Alliance system is badly flawed and needlessly puts players at risk, I would be as happy as anyone else to see the Alliance system improved, but until or unless that happens I will continue to recommend that people not use them unless they have a very strong trust relationship with people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, wolfstallion said:

it's not up to wildcard do deal with this because it is impossible for them to do so instead i think that you should trade with traders who have good reputations that have been doing trades for a long time. or do your trading through them to another tribe so you only have to let the trader be around your base and not the other tribe 

If only traders with a good rep should be allowed to trade or traders  who have been 'doing it for a long time' I guess that means no new folks are allowed to trade? And lordy...whatever do we do once people leave the game...even those 'established' traders? 

I am reading a whole lotta "I don't enjoy the things you do and don't do the thing so leave all things alone" in this thread. Gonna bet most of those saying it's fine are mostly PVPers. Two different worlds, my friends. In PVE endgame IS trading/raising and collecting dinos. Wildcard supports the mechanic of trading as witnessed by a whole section dedicated to trading on the official forums. As well the 'blackbag bodybag' issue was ruled in as legitimate use for hauling from server to server ages ago.

This game evolves from its original incarnation as the gamers that play it evolve and the game grows. It is the very spirit of Ark and 'what it's all about' if you hadn't noticed.

 

Edited by Poppet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

instead of waiting for some changes to be made on how alliances work why not just put in some base defenses to defend yourself against pve raiders

put in some turrets and a vault room with a few layers of walls and have some dinos on guard

i dont think pve raiders are going to be too hard to stop

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Woodsman said:

instead of waiting for some changes to be made on how alliances work why not just put in some base defenses to defend yourself against pve raiders

put in some turrets and a vault room with a few layers of walls and have some dinos on guard

i dont think pve raiders are going to be too hard to stop

 

Because that would require reason and logic

Share this post


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

instead of waiting for some changes to be made on how alliances work why not just put in some base defenses to defend yourself against pve raiders

put in some turrets and a vault room with a few layers of walls and have some dinos on guard

i dont think pve raiders are going to be too hard to stop

 

1. I have long since - not because of this issue but because I have played Ark for a very long time and am quite familiar to the antics of the player base.

2. We who play PVE SPECIFICALLY have selected to play without the concerns of dealing with other players in aggressor mode. If we wanted to deal with that...we would be playing PVP and building tiny huts with multiple doors, secret passages, multi thick walls yada yada.

Honestly, boys, try to put the pvp mindset aside and understand there are two sides to the game style people choose to play here? I promise not to go to PVP and start shooting my mouth off about gameplay I don't have much interest in. I'll leave it to you guys that prefer it to try and craft a better PVP experience.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Because that would require reason and logic

No, it would require a complete redesign of bases that were built w/out that in mind.  It would take resources and time beyond just a few turrets.  We already have to set up defenses on ext because of the creative griefers.  

But many of us have already disbanded alliances since we know people are exploiting the mechanic more now.  Of course, should nobody use alliances anymore, maybe they would notice they have a game mechanic nobody uses and they'd be more interested in addressing it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, GrumpyBear said:

No, it would require a complete redesign of bases that were built w/out that in mind.  It would take resources and time beyond just a few turrets.  We already have to set up defenses on ext because of the creative griefers.  

But many of us have already disbanded alliances since we know people are exploiting the mechanic more now.  Of course, should nobody use alliances anymore, maybe they would notice they have a game mechanic nobody uses and they'd be more interested in addressing it.

Agreed if we wanted to build bases that is meant to be raided we would move to PVP....  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, GrumpyBear said:

For sure an optional war commitment just wouldn't work.  You can't have  an alliance with someone who doesnt want to participate in defending against a war declaration.  It's gotta be all in or nothing.  I think even the admin or owner function leaves out scenarios that play out bad for members in an alliance w/out war power.

 

This is absolute BS. How the hell do you justify this to yourself? It must be all or nothing... what balony, An option to allow you to accept or decline joining a war on the side of an ally is totally applicable and the best solution in my and others opinions, It will then be up to you to decide which allies will have your back and which won't, you know kind of like how it works in many many other games and in real life also???????
 

Instead you prefer a system where one is forced into a conflict that you may not even know anything about because "allies should have each others backs" that is so backwards. It should be a choice not an involuntary mechanic. You realize that this is the sole reason that other players can take advantage of the mechanic right? if tribe leaders had the choice to accept or decline going to war this would completely remove this problem from PVE which is why I am baffled at how people are against this.

Yes some allies may be unreliable and not join you in war guess what you can do in those situations??? break the alliance with them, this would be a good way to test who really has your back anyway would it not? I mean some guy who is forced into making enemies with the people you make enemies with and has no say in whether to side with you or not, just seems backwards and dumb to me, and totally removed from logic and reality.  So easy simple fix, let tribe leaders choose to join a war on the side of their ally or to decline. Heck you can even have it that if they choose to decline then it instantly breaks the alliance, for all of you who are hellbent on having your allies be strong armed into your conflicts. Then it will be a case of join the war or stop being our ally. I find anyone who is defending the fact that your allies have no choice with the wars YOU SELFISHLY can drag them into are not of sound logic and mind.

As for people getting screwed over by these situations, sure Wildcard can fix the issue and I agree that they should probably adjust the system for PvE with a simple accept or decline feature as described above, but for the time being it isn't like that, so similar to the gas bag phenomenon take freaking precautions. If a company selling carrots has toxic chemicals in them, and they havent removed them yet are you going to keep eating their products anyway and then blame the company when you get sick even when you are aware there are chemicals in it that can harm you? (remove the whole mindset of "well you can sue them that way", for arguments sake and as it wouldnt apply to this situation) No you stop eating the dam carrots until they have fixed the issue.

Take extra precaution until such a time that the issue is addressed. and if it is never addressed then make those precautions permanent. 

Edited by HoboNation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As I said before, which I don't think you read my earlier statements, the option should be at the initial creating of the alliance.  When the owner creates the alliance, they can flag it to be a war alliance or a peace alliance.  That flag would inhibit anyone from initiating a war, including the owner.  The flag shouldn't be editable so that noone can be tricked into an alliance that led to a war w/out their consent.  A 15min cooldown upon a new ally joining is plenty of time for a tribe to view the stats of the alliance and make sure they are in a peaceful one and have the option to leave if they see the alliance is actually flagged for war.  Your expression towards me here is a bit misplaced as I was clearly stating the option for war should be an initial condition on the creation of an alliance.    

Having a system where people have to opt in would be far more work, to set up the messaging system to notify member in an alliance.  I'm sure such a way of doing it is possible, but it also requires more work that I dont' see as necessary when they can already control permissions of who can declare war as it stands.  I'm suggesting they make it so we can exert control over that function a little more than we can now.

Should those tribes wish to engage in war, there's nothing stopping them from creating a new alliance with the new flag and proof of consent would be established the moment the tribes entered and stayed in the alliance. 

Edited by GrumpyBear
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was an argument on initial "all or nothing" statement.

Leaders accepting or rejecting ally-war is more flexible. You may wish to participate in one war, but stay away from other depending on too many factors to list and per-tribe-involvement allows it without constantly creating and leaving alliances. It is not more difficult than war/peace alliances, underlying functionality that allows allies to not be involved in war would be the same, only difference is how it is presented to player. So basically UI.

 

I don't understand all that "see who would get your back " and "allies should always help in war no matter what" thing.

Once again - it is not about pvp where you can get raided any time and may require urgen assistance. If you want  to have a war - maybe prepare for it first.

The whole war declaration mechanic suggests having an option. Your allies could be busy, offline, unprepared or simply not interested in fighting in this specific war, yet you expect them to drop everything they are doing and come help in war which you started counting on them doing half of the work.

- You in hospital because your wife giving birth? The hell man?! I just started a war that I can't win on my own because you should be here and fight for me! get your but over here right now!

- You just hatched 100 rexes? Well pod or starve them and be quick about it because I started a war!

 

If you still insist allies should always fight for allies, how about this scenario: tribe A is in 2 separate alliances. One with tribe B and other with tribe C. Then B and C had an argument and decided to fight over it. Now which ally A should always fight for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This fix is stupid easy...

Add a setting in tribe management that abandons an alliance on war declaration. If its checked, and an alliance you are in declares war, your tribe is automatically removed from the alliance.

That way people can safely form alliances on PvE with that setting checked if they don't want to get dragged into wars or fear this exploit. If a tribe decides they want to participate in alliance wars, uncheck the setting and go to town.

How is this worth people bitching over. Its a Player vs Environment server, there is no excuse for this exploit and its can likely be fixed with by adding simple tribe settings mechanic.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...