Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
ForzaProiettile

The Path To Improved PVP

Recommended Posts

The Path To Improved PVP

Those of us who are PVP players and even those who are not I am sure are acutely aware that this game has been riding down a slippery slope now for a number of years. Not only has the player base started to dry up, but even this place this forum, this place of  occasionally good thought has also become rather barren, void of ideas and debate.So the question is what can be done and what improve the game and the experience of its users? 

With regards to the game itself and in particular the PVP side especially on servers that are not small tribe servers the big flaw in the game is the lack of competitive spirit. There are too many large tribes and furthermore these tribes are simply unwilling to fight one another regularly enough. There are too many alliances, too much risk involved for many to bother going to war and to be fair if you put yourself into their shoes it makes sense this policy of peace. They have all the best breeding lines and the best blueprints, all the resources they can ever need so why fight and risk everything for stuff that they already have?

This is where the game is currently failing. The risk vs reward for large tribe is simply not there in the late game. It makes far more sense to ally with everyone then to make a bold move and fight someone. I think a new system needs to be introduced maybe like in Atlas (a failed Pirate game) where blueprints have a limited number of uses before they expire and cannot be used. This at least means there would be constant competition over loot crates because they would be constantly in need.

Secondly reduce the max players per tribe on Official servers to around 20 max. This is still a very large number but not as ridiculous as it is now. The result of this would mean more tribes on servers and more tribes means more competition. At the same time restrict the amount of alliances to 1 and limit the tribes that can be in that alliance to 2. This would restrict the ability for tribes to create mass peace and instead sow the seeds for chaos and war. The result would be a more interactive and immersive PVP experience for the majority of players on Official PVP servers.

Lastly to mix things up a bit I believe that each server should have some kind of special bonus to it. For example Server 1 might have 10% more yield from metal nodes. Server 2 might have 10% better quality loot drops. Both servers could be using the same map the only difference is the special server bonus. The point is no server should be similar and therefore this will act as a drawcard an enticement for other tribes to want to control that server because of the bonuses it may offer.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, ForzaProiettile said:

The Path To Improved PVP

Those of us who are PVP players and even those who are not I am sure are acutely aware that this game has been riding down a slippery slope now for a number of years. Not only has the player base started to dry up, but even this place this forum, this place of  occasionally good thought has also become rather barren, void of ideas and debate.So the question is what can be done and what improve the game and the experience of its users? 

With regards to the game itself and in particular the PVP side especially on servers that are not small tribe servers the big flaw in the game is the lack of competitive spirit. There are too many large tribes and furthermore these tribes are simply unwilling to fight one another regularly enough. There are too many alliances, too much risk involved for many to bother going to war and to be fair if you put yourself into their shoes it makes sense this policy of peace. They have all the best breeding lines and the best blueprints, all the resources they can ever need so why fight and risk everything for stuff that they already have?

This is where the game is currently failing. The risk vs reward for large tribe is simply not there in the late game. It makes far more sense to ally with everyone then to make a bold move and fight someone. I think a new system needs to be introduced maybe like in Atlas (a failed Pirate game) where blueprints have a limited number of uses before they expire and cannot be used. This at least means there would be constant competition over loot crates because they would be constantly in need.

Secondly reduce the max players per tribe on Official servers to around 20 max. This is still a very large number but not as ridiculous as it is now. The result of this would mean more tribes on servers and more tribes means more competition. At the same time restrict the amount of alliances to 1 and limit the tribes that can be in that alliance to 2. This would restrict the ability for tribes to create mass peace and instead sow the seeds for chaos and war. The result would be a more interactive and immersive PVP experience for the majority of players on Official PVP servers.

Lastly to mix things up a bit I believe that each server should have some kind of special bonus to it. For example Server 1 might have 10% more yield from metal nodes. Server 2 might have 10% better quality loot drops. Both servers could be using the same map the only difference is the special server bonus. The point is no server should be similar and therefore this will act as a drawcard an enticement for other tribes to want to control that server because of the bonuses it may offer.

I agree with all your ideas and think they are good. Well except one I don't agree with:

50 minutes ago, ForzaProiettile said:

Secondly reduce the max players per tribe on Official servers to around 20 max.

I personally am never a fan of artificial rules that restrict player freedom. A sandbox game should be an expression of freedom allowing players to choose the meta uninfluenced (or as little as possible) by rules from the devs concerning player interaction.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think the blueprint idea is great. Once you have all the blueprints theres nothing more to get. PvP or PvE.

The Tek BPs were great in this aspect. What would your numbers be? Is 3 crafts (like tek bps) too little? Would there be different numbers of crafts for weapons, armours and saddle blueprints? 

I know your aim is to help PVP but I believe the blueprint idea would help ARK as a whole. Some people might get bent up about it but I truly think it would help with tedium and make players have to make hard choices about their crafts. It also opens the doors to many new features (for example - if made in a Tek rep you get 2 crafts for 1 use vs making in a smithy or dino) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, johnm81 said:

I agree with all your ideas and think they are good. Well except one I don't agree with:

I personally am never a fan of artificial rules that restrict player freedom. A sandbox game should be an expression of freedom allowing players to choose the meta uninfluenced (or as little as possible) by rules from the devs concerning player interaction

That's an illusion, there's no such thing as players 'choosing the meta uninfluenced by rules from the devs'.

The very existence of any game, of every game, is by definition a meta influenced by rules from the devs. Every game that has ever existed involved players trying to win while operating within the meta created by the game system and the rules, that's exactly what a game is, what every game has ever been that has ever existed, starting with "who can throw a rock at this target the best" back in 2 million B.C. all the way up to the most sophisticated computer game imaginable. This is just as true of sandbox games as every other game.

Why can't you fly a Sopwith Camel on Official servers in ARK? Because of 'the meta influenced by rules from the devs'.

Why can't you use the Konami code to double-spin-drop-kick your opponent off of their rex in ARK? Because of 'the meta influenced by rules from the devs'.

Why can't you drop in a squad of space marines with AI controlled Jedi mind powers from their transport ship in low-earth orbit that invade your opponents base in ARK? Because of 'the meta influenced by rules from the devs'.

The greatest strength of ARK is that it's a game that can be played in multiple modes - PvP, PvE, Primitive+, Official, Unofficial, solo, modded, unmodded, reconfigured, large cluster, small cluster, small tribe, and so on. The one thing that all of those modes have in common is that every one them has a defacto "meta uninfluenced by rules from the devs".

So if you want to argue that you like large tribes better, that's perfectly reasonable, you're entitled to your personal preferences, but the very idea that this game, or any other game, can ever be "uninfluenced by rules from the devs" is a purely fictional construct, it's a false idea that does not and can not exist.

Now maybe it wouldn't be a good idea for WC to convert every single PvP server into 20-man servers using the rules that Forza described, but it's clear that a lot of PvP players like the 6-man servers, a large number of PvP players moved from standard PvP meta to the 6-man PvP meta. And this suggests that there might also be enough player interest in the meta that Forza is suggesting. Maybe, maybe not, and certainly it's up to WC to decide whether they like the meta that he's suggesting, but whether WC likes it or not make no mistake, every second of every minute that you're playing this game you are playing "a meta influenced by rules from the devs".

Edited by Pipinghot
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of what i have read so far honestly fixes any issues relating to PvP that my tribe of 70+ quit for.

Numbers only matter to those who spend every waking hour they got on the game. When you are putting in 12-14 hours shifts you do not need more than 20. My tribe of 70 had less than 15 people on at all times. Only 1 raid did we ever exceeded 20 people on at a single time.

 

Breeding

Breeding does not need to be removed it just needs a total rework. Breeding should give an advantage but taming should also be a viable option. Currently breeding is the only option so people who feel behind never PvP and just keep working towards catching up till they are eventually raided themselves then they quit. I put breeding as Arks number 2 PvP issue as you rarely have to leave your own base to obtain war creatures past a point.

Convenience 

Healing creatures and product producing. Creatures like snails Owls and items like herby cakes are another issue with Ark. These are stalling options they allow you to stall fights out till numbers are in your favor. PvP needs winners and losers as well as happy/frustrated emotions. Right now no one is ever considered a winner in wars because you spend weeks unless you catch them with very few people online. Winning a defense or winning a push back in Early access meant so much especially if you killed 10s or even 100s of flyers. Now when ever a creature gets low HP you just go back and cryo/or TP it out and keep it alive for future fights. It is not a good system for PvP but there is nothing that can be done about it because players love it so much because it protects. On the other hand you have snails with causes less competition over say chitin locations thus causing less human encounters causing less PvP.

Structure spam

This is ark's number 1 issue. I do not care if you need to "Protect your server" The entire server spam is DUMB AF. If it takes 2+ days to clear the spam just to get close enough to a teleporter/base is the exact reason why there is no PvP. People get bored before the PvP even begins the majority of the time. While i understand spam is crucial to base defense/keeping wild creatures from spawning in your bases. Clearing up structures is not fun. No one even those who have that spam and raid people with that spam does not consider it fun. I genuinely believe that this is something they should work on when they add the public beta test servers.

This is why many go play on unofficial. You can PvP with out having to worry about the enemies BS spam and if the server gets to built up you can just switch to another server that fresh wiped. Official is so different it is about beating someone then never letting them play again 

 

This is the overall problem the things causing PvP to have less meaning or no reason to participate are the same reasons why people continue to play this game. If you changed all the important changes that would fix Ark then you would have a bigger back lash from the loud mega tribe community.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My suggestions are about how to increase official population by making it attractive to new players, as well as making it enticing for previously wiped/dead tribes to return and rebuild.

Increase wild dino level to 300

The biggest reason why new tribes can not get started on officials is that unless you can get some lines from a friendly megatribe you have no chance. After 2 years of intense breeding lines are so OP and so far ahead you will never catch up. 

With level 300 wild dinos you can upto level 370 post tame dinos. Not great but decent enough that you are not completely useless vs level 400+ bred monsters with millions of mutations

Increase prim flak dura to 400

Another reason new tribes cant pvp is that you need minimum 500+, and ideally 800+ dura flak to be effective in pvp. The difference between megatribes in 1000+ dura flak and prim flak is like being naked vs fighting someone in an ironman suit. With 400 dura prim flak anyone would at least be able to pvp without getting one shot all time.

Buff metal and poly on non Abberation maps

Megatribes basically have cheat amount of resources because of how broken Abberation is farming. New tribes with no transmitter, hazard suits have to rely on argies and it takes down days to farm what 2 guys at a megatribes ab base can do in 10 mins. Suggstion -> add boosted metal nodes to all maps. As well as poly trees.

General PVP suggestion

One guy on foot should not be able to permanantly immobilize a giga with grapples

Add a bola like mechanic, where a dino attacking would cause grappled crossbows to take durability damage. Prim crossbows should instantly break if grappled to an encumbered giga, theri or reaper that attacks. Ascendant in 3 bites.

Snow Owl need nerf

Heal should work off food like daedon. Free heals is incredibly game breaking.

Freeze should not ground flyers.Freeze should only slow and not freeze dinos larger than a raptor.

Snow owl stam regen slowed, stam consumption greatly increased. The snow owl right now is an immortal flyer, it never has to land, and nothing can kill it in the air. This should change, wyverns or manas should be able to take down rogue snow owl griefers.

Ground dinos need abilities that counter flyers

GIve all larger dinos able to grab flyers like how the megalo can grab small dinos. If someone is trying to pick you a well timed grab instead can doom the flyer.

Rex and giga roar should fear flyers like yuty does (rex does this but only if flyer is lower level than rex).

Plant Z should only blind not dismount

Its a dino game yet plant Z make it not fun to be on a dino. The whole game has about CC, plant y or z them, then pocket giga. This is stupid. People should be brawling with dinos.

On PVP pocket dinos always come out cryosick

Enough with the pocket giga meta already. Cryos should be for storage and transport. Not a pvp weapon.

Add a cannon version of the railgun

This weapon will fix cave/tree meta. Same range and damage as cannon but ability to go through mesh like railgun. Fires same ammo as meks. The idea is if the game turns too campy and people are sitting and mesh biting for days at a time, you just bring artillery and slowly bring down the campers whole FOB/base. People must be forced to come out and pvp or lose their base/fob.

Buff Kentros

Gigas are way too powerful since their only counter was removed.

 

Edited by covenantgrunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, covenantgrunt said:

Plant Z should only blind not dismount

Its a dino game yet plant Z make it not fun to be on a dino. The whole game has about CC, plant y or z them, then pocket giga. This is stupid. People should be brawling with dinos.

Wouldn't this cause the main defense against Tek Tapy's and Mana's to go away imbalancing them further. Cryosicking the pocket Giga would too (for Mana). 

I like the rest of your suggestions but think until they have other viable defense for Mana besides Mana, those two shouldn't be touched.

Share this post


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

That's an illusion, there's no such thing as players 'choosing the meta uninfluenced by rules from the devs'."

I stopped reading right there because you misquoted what I said so the rest of your post isn't something I need to address.

What I said was:

10 hours ago, johnm81 said:

A sandbox game should be an expression of freedom allowing players to choose the meta uninfluenced (or as little as possible) by rules from the devs concerning player interaction.

.....is what I said. Place special attention to to the part in ( )'s.

So the question isn't can a game have NO influence from devs on its meta. Rather "( as little as possible)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ForzaProiettile said:

Atlas (a failed Pirate game)

I laughed pretty good at this one.

11 hours ago, ForzaProiettile said:

With regards to the game itself and in particular the PVP side especially on servers that are not small tribe servers the big flaw in the game is the lack of competitive spirit. There are too many large tribes and furthermore these tribes are simply unwilling to fight one another regularly enough. There are too many alliances, too much risk involved for many to bother going to war and to be fair if you put yourself into their shoes it makes sense this policy of peace. They have all the best breeding lines and the best blueprints, all the resources they can ever need so why fight and risk everything for stuff that they already have?

This is where the game is currently failing. The risk vs reward for large tribe is simply not there in the late game. It makes far more sense to ally with everyone then to make a bold move and fight someone. I think a new system needs to be introduced maybe like in Atlas (a failed Pirate game) where blueprints have a limited number of uses before they expire and cannot be used. This at least means there would be constant competition over loot crates because they would be constantly in need.

I am a filthy PvE'er with some experience in PvP.  Sure as poop not enough to be anywhere near the same level as Forza or the other PvP'ers on the forums, but I'll share thoughts -*as someone who has had fun on PvP (official and unofficial) and wouldn't mind starting on official somehow*-.

Your definition of "competitive spirit" differs from theirs, you gotta admit.  One aspect you personally find fun about PvP is a pseudo-political aspect (lying and manipulation to gain advantages over people) of making and breaking alliances. You and I have previously established (in a different thread) that you enjoy that and because your actions are rightful, it is your inalienable right to play that way.  Many have no, and I mean zero, desire to be forced to play with that particular level of "competitive spirit."  There is a lot to do in this game other than constant and unrestrained killing of tames, demolishing of structures, and the killing/trapping of other survivors.  Sure, people have access to this gameplay mode if they choose because when on a PvP server, you can do as you please.  But that also includes getting some good allies, breeding good dinos, and doing bossfights as an alliance.  Or ascending.  Or doing caves together for fun.  Or showing your alliance-mates how to farm Reaper Queens.

The whole point is, you are wanting to introduce systems and changes that would push people to playing like you do.  That would be fun for YOU, but not necessarily fun for everyone who is not you and unwilling to join your tribe/alliance as a soldier/pawn/dupe.  Personally, I can't see myself enjoy being pigeon-holed into constant PvP combat so I would never sign up for it.  I know, I know...  "Good riddance" and all, that general sentiment.  But many who play PvP wouldn't want to either, like stone-hut-guy.

4 hours ago, SlipperySquid said:

Official is so different it is about beating someone then never letting them play again.

That's the fun part, Slip.  You can feel good, because YOU did that.  YOU caused them to be so upset that they quit.  YOU personally made the PvP playerbase shrink, and that right there...  That's a choice feeling.

 

Edited by TheDonn
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, johnm81 said:

I stopped reading right there because you misquoted what I said so the rest of your post isn't something I need to address.

What I said was:

.....is what I said. Place special attention to to the part in ( )'s.

So the question isn't can a game have NO influence from devs on its meta. Rather "( as little as possible)

That's still an illusion, the extra words in parentheses don't change anything about the answer.

Every game is, by definition, fully influenced by  the devs in it's meta. Even the decision to let players have freedom is a dev decision that influences the meta.

Share this post


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

Buff Kentros

Gigas are way too powerful since their only counter was removed.

*This was pre-Extinction and cryopods*

The time I was attacked on unofficial, 2 40K HP Kentros were the yard-guards and that Giga ate its rider after about 5-6 bites.  Was a matter of kiting it off then, and their tactic had to be switched up.  So, I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

That's still an illusion, the extra words in parentheses don't change anything about the answer.

Every game is, by definition, fully influenced by  the devs in it's meta. Even the decision to let players have freedom is a dev decision that influences the meta.

No its is very different. And this is what was written in the ( )'s delineates.  You can define the devs giving us freedom as a decision that drives the meta. Sure it is to an extent. The difference is that the devs can influence us to make our own decisions or they can make the decisions for us. 

Both are forms of influence, granted, but not all influences are the same. Some influences allow lots of freedom others restrict freedom. Thus I support influences that drive the players to decide how they want to play (freedom ) vs influences that tell us how to play.

 

Edited by johnm81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, yekrucifixion187 said:

Wouldn't this cause the main defense against Tek Tapy's and Mana's to go away imbalancing them further. Cryosicking the pocket Giga would too (for Mana). 

I like the rest of your suggestions but think until they have other viable defense for Mana besides Mana, those two shouldn't be touched.

Right good point, i forgot about tapes and manas. How about plant z dismount stays, but the dismount work vs flyers (and manas, they are basically a flyer given how mobile they are). Further compensate by returning plant z to old weight (0.1). The idea would be that Z is a counter to fast movers like manas and flyers. Not something you use to turn off megaos, rhinos and theriz with a left click.

Edited by covenantgrunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, johnm81 said:

No its is very different. And this is what was written in the ( )'s delineates.  You can define the devs giving us freedom as a decision that drives the meta. Sure it is to an extent. The difference is that the devs can influence us to make our own decisions or they can make the decisions for us. 

Both are forms of influence, granted, but not all influences are the same. Some influences allow lots of freedom others restrict freedom. Thus I support influences that drive the players to decide how they want to play (freedom ) vs influences that tell us how to play.

It's a distinction without a difference.

You need to go back and read the stuff that you skipped, you're not understanding the full context of what I'm saying. You're "stopped reading right there" response also means you "stopped understanding right there."

Share this post


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

It's a distinction without a difference.

On the contrary its a distinction with a big difference. And its best summed up not all "influence" from a dev on a player is the same. Influences can be used to increase player freedom or reduce it. Some influences are a light touch other influences are a heavy hand. 

It is a distinction with a huge difference.

13 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

You need to go back and read the stuff that you skipped

I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought that the PVP server should be in a tiered system. server 1 gets 10x all the time so it is fought over more and then down the line do the same thing server 2 and 3 only get 5x but you can only get to server 1 through server 2 or server 3. server 5,6,7,8 and 9 all get 2x and you can only get the server 2 in 3 through the servers and so on.

Edited by SCEDeadeye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TheDonn said:

I laughed pretty good at this one.

I am a filthy PvE'er with some experience in PvP.  Sure as poop not enough to be anywhere near the same level as Forza or the other PvP'ers on the forums, but I'll share thoughts -*as someone who has had fun on PvP (official and unofficial) and wouldn't mind starting on official somehow*-.

Your definition of "competitive spirit" differs from theirs, you gotta admit.  One aspect you personally find fun about PvP is a pseudo-political aspect (lying and manipulation to gain advantages over people) of making and breaking alliances. You and I have previously established (in a different thread) that you enjoy that and because your actions are rightful, it is your inalienable right to play that way.  Many have no, and I mean zero, desire to be forced to play with that particular level of "competitive spirit."  There is a lot to do in this game other than constant and unrestrained killing of tames, demolishing of structures, and the killing/trapping of other survivors.  Sure, people have access to this gameplay mode if they choose because when on a PvP server, you can do as you please.  But that also includes getting some good allies, breeding good dinos, and doing bossfights as an alliance.  Or ascending.  Or doing caves together for fun.  Or showing your alliance-mates how to farm Reaper Queens.

The whole point is, you are wanting to introduce systems and changes that would push people to playing like you do.  That would be fun for YOU, but not necessarily fun for everyone who is not you and unwilling to join your tribe/alliance as a soldier/pawn/dupe.  Personally, I can't see myself enjoy being pigeon-holed into constant PvP combat so I would never sign up for it.  I know, I know...  "Good riddance" and all, that general sentiment.  But many who play PvP wouldn't want to either, like stone-hut-guy.

That's the fun part, Slip.  You can feel good, because YOU did that.  YOU caused them to be so upset that they quit.  YOU personally made the PvP playerbase shrink, and that right there...  That's a choice feeling.

 

Well look I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a keen lobbyist for my style of play, but I am sure that goes for just about anyone on here. Everyone wishes to see the game moulded more towards their play style. That said there is definitely a lack of 'competition' on PVP servers between large tribes which leads to a sort of stalemate on a lot of the servers. That isn't something that is good for new players, the solo beach bob or the guy in the small tribe. You say that some players might not want a competitive environment but that's akin to saying some PVE players might want to do some fighting even though they are on a PVE server. It's a type mismatch, these folks simply aren't playing the right mode.

Official PVP from the outset was designed as the premiere tier of PVP in this game, the Formula 1 of ARK if you will. In many ways its like the free market, you have a lot of large companies and in theory they should all be competing against each other but instead you find here and there is a lot of collusion going on. So just like a free market, it needs a bit of regulation from time to time to break up monopolies and anti competitive practices. This is what my solution would introduce, it would help break up these monopolies and therefore raise the level of competition between players which is a win win for just about everyone. 

As for our friend in the stone hut, players are free in this game to make bad gameplay choices. It happens all the time, some folks lose their perfectly bred to some wild dino because they got too greedy, in his case it was his base because well he couldn't see the writing on the wall.

Edited by ForzaProiettile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ForzaProiettile said:

Well look I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a keen lobbyist for my style of play, but I am sure that goes for just about anyone on here. Everyone wishes to see the game moulded more towards their play style. That said there is definitely a lack of 'competition' on PVP servers between large tribes which leads to a sort of stalemate on a lot of the servers. That isn't something that is good for new players, the solo beach bob or the guy in the small tribe. You say that some players might not want a competitive environment but that's akin to saying some PVE players might want to do some fighting even though they are on a PVE server. It's a type mismatch, these folks simply aren't playing the right mode.

Yeah, so the competition for large tribes is now raiding the poop out of small and medium tribes, because if you aren't actively killing tames and demoing structures, what's the point?  New players could possibly want to play PvP for the occasional skirmish, occasional raid, or online base defense.  There is still a competitive spirit there!  It just isn't all-encompassing, and that's the difference.  ARK isn't Call of Duty, it doesn't feel like its designed to be that way.  Before I am pounced on by people saying "yes it is," hear me out:  What kind of developers would design a game where the majority of decent and helpful tames take 2-8 real-life days to breed, if you are just supposed to run around 24/7 CoD'ing everything?  I get that the opportunity is there, and I'm on unstable ground trying to interpret the developer's motives, but it doesn't seem like Studio WildCard designed the game to be a Sociopath's Wet Dream simulator.

Alas, regardless of how we get there or got here, that's what I feel like Official ARK PvP is played like nowadays.  It's unrestrained CoD with heavy investment, so the losses feel really bad.  The wins are great too, but most of the feeling of victory comes from knowing you have stronger tames, which you most likely know at the onset of a raid.  My point, if you will, is that encouraging that kind of gameplay seems kinda toxic, and might be one of the reasons PvP is feeling stale.  People either tribe up with a big-time combat tribe and raid anything that moves before retreating to their home-server to hide behind 100 heavies and tek turrets in a cave (hoping they don't get meshed), or they try to hide and just play casually getting constantly raided and wiped until they leave the game.  Telling people you don't think they are playing right rarely has any impact, but forcing them to play differently than they would like to can have a negative impact, like more attrition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ForzaProiettile said:

Official PVP from the outset was designed as the premiere tier of PVP in this game, the Formula 1 of ARK if you will. In many ways its like the free market, you have a lot of large companies and in theory they should all be competing against each other but instead you find here and there is a lot of collusion going on. So just like a free market, it needs a bit of regulation from time to time to break up monopolies and anti competitive practices. This is what my solution would introduce, it would help break up these monopolies and therefore raise the level of competition between players which is a win win for just about everyone.

Something that I kinda just thought of is, what ARK PvP feels like now is the natural result of the playstyle you want to see more of.  That is what would naturally happen when large groups of people are just aggressive for the sake of aggression in ARK:  Small and medium tribes are basically nothing to raid and give you very little, and you don't want to raid the bigger, more established tribes because of the losses you'll sustain.  I don't think that your solutions would have the effect you want them to.  What's it gonna do, add 2-3 more huge-ass tribes that are gunshy about taking on other huge-ass tribes across the cluster? 

As long as small and medium tribes continue to have zero chance of survival or viability, I don't feel like ARK PvP will feel fresh for you.  So a 70-man tribe becomes two 20-man tribes (20 tribelimit + alliancemember), and small to medium tribes are 100% unchanged:  As an Ant under the foot of a charging Rhino.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

So you've expressed your personal preference for the specific dev created meta that you enjoy, and of course no one's forcing you enjoy any of the other dev created metas. Good show.

No I have expressed interest in the dev maintaining the influence of a variety of meta selected by players and sometimes innovatived by players that devs never contemplated. 

 

 

Share this post


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

Well look I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a keen lobbyist for my style of play, but I am sure that goes for just about anyone on here. Everyone wishes to see the game moulded more towards their play style. That said there is definitely a lack of 'competition' on PVP servers between large tribes which leads to a sort of stalemate on a lot of the servers.

I’m not sure this assertion of mega  stalemate is universally accurate. While typing this YSS and GG are fighting on fronts on several servers and some bases have been wiped.

In fact my discord is blowing up right now by admins yelling at us to reinforce certain servers attacks. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, johnm81 said:

I’m not sure this assertion of mega  stalemate is universally accurate. While typing this YSS and GG are fighting on fronts on several servers and some bases have been wiped.

In fact my discord is blowing up right now by admins yelling at us to reinforce certain servers attacks. 

 

Pretty sure it is more than just YSS and GG fighting right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, johnm81 said:

I’m not sure this assertion of mega  stalemate is universally accurate. While typing this YSS and GG are fighting on fronts on several servers and some bases have been wiped.

In fact my discord is blowing up right now by admins yelling at us to reinforce certain servers attacks. 

 

I am not saying they don't fight here and there but for the most part there is not a whole lot of action going on most days. My point was that there is more beneficial for them to not fight and therefore not risk anything since they already have everything they could possibly need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...