Creatures that would be cool to have in Ark ???

[DylanJae17]

Am I the only one that thinks about adding 3 new Mythical Creatures in Ark?

 

|                    PEGASUS                    |                    CENTAUR                     |                   MINOTAUR                    |

 

Pegasus

The Mythical Horse with wings and the ability to fly and sky dive like the Griffin, but can also barrel role while flying similar to that of the Pteranodon. A variety of saddles; regular, armored, and royal. Useful for travelling far distances and taming, having the ability to rear kick like that of the Equus and Unicorn being able to knock out creatures.

 

Centaur

Tamable Centaurs, that can carry specific weapons and you can ride them. The Centaurs that could come in 2 different types of genders and have different types of clothing also similar to that of an original player.

 

Minotaur

Would be found in caves and spawn in a variety of types carrying different weapons. The only creature to come in ranks, higher ranking Minotaur would have more armor and better quality weapons than the lower ranks. 

[Pipinghot]

7 hours ago, DylanJae17 said:

Pegasus Centaur Minotaur

Flying horses could be cool, but considering we already have the griffon and equus I'd be surprised if they add flying horses.

Centaurs are sentient, which means taming them would be like taking slaves, which is something that WC has explicitly stated they'll never have in the game. I'd be extremely surprised if they even considered centaurs for more than about 2 seconds.

Minotaurs would be cool monsters, something un-tameable to add to caves.

[wizard03]

I would absolutely love a Pegasus. But I feel like it would have to have something special to make it different from the regular eques and griffins. Maybe unlimited stamina while flying? Or running on ground? Granted the iguanadon can do the same on ground, so maybe the skies would work. And then there is the issue of movement speed, would it only work on ground, in the air, or maybe wildcard lets loose just one official tame that can have its movement speed in the air increased, but at the cost of having one of the softest squishiest tames in the game?.....Possibilities here. Real possibilities here.

Centaur, same deal as pipinghot said. They are supposed to be humans with equine bodies, so yeaaaaah......

And the minotaur has some big bad boss vibes going on. Compared to some of the other fantasy creatures that have popped up, this is a bit less far fetched than even the island dragon.

[RTGLoot]

6 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

Centaurs are sentient, which means taming them would be like taking slaves, which is something that WC has explicitly stated they'll never have in the game. 

 

Good point but that would be easy to word around. Just replace taming with  “Hiring centaurs” would bypass it.

[Pipinghot]

4 hours ago, RTGLoot said:

Good point but that would be easy to word around. Just replace taming with  “Hiring centaurs” would bypass it.

WildCard disagrees with you. Whether it's easy to word around or not, they've stated (a few times) that they don't want to ever have sentient creatures that players can tame/hire/control/etc.

[RTGLoot]

1 hour ago, Pipinghot said:

WildCard disagrees with you. Whether it's easy to word around or not, they've stated (a few times) that they don't want to ever have sentient creatures that players can tame/hire/control/etc.

Interesting do you have a source. The various texts found in game made numerous references to slaves (Ref Rockwell Record #17 Scorched Earth) the wooden cage structure and hand cuff equipment lead me to believe WildCard had included it in. Mei Yin Li protected survivors for hire as well. That being said I do see how the statement and this one could be misunderstood or worse come off as aggressive. I was trying to provide a mean’s for the creature to be added into the game ethically. Perhaps just not give them a tame option would have been a better solution.

[Pipinghot]

16 hours ago, RTGLoot said:

Interesting do you have a source.

I've seen people quote them here on the forum, either quoting a tweet or some other social media post. The quotes I saw were responses to other old threads in which people made suggestions similar to yours. It is, for example, the reason they've given for not adding human NPC's to the game. In fairness to you, it's been a long time since I last saw someone post a quote so it's possible that they would consider changing their mind, specifically for a non-human species like centaurs. Even so, this late in the progress of the game I doubt it. The fact that they've never added in any sentient species to tame/enslave/hire/etc pretty much speaks for itself at this point. With their long established history of avoiding adding sentient species to the game combined with the fact that their primary motivation for keeping ARK alive is to maintain the potential audience for ARK 2, it would be pretty darned surprising to see them change that decision now.

16 hours ago, RTGLoot said:

The various texts found in game made numerous references to slaves (Ref Rockwell Record #17 Scorched Earth) the wooden cage structure and hand cuff equipment lead me to believe WildCard had included it in.

They're included for PvP. Taking other players as prisoners is a long way from enslaving sentient non-player creatures.

16 hours ago, RTGLoot said:

That being said I do see how the statement and this one could be misunderstood or worse come off as aggressive. I was trying to provide a mean’s for the creature to be added into the game ethically. Perhaps just not give them a tame option would have been a better solution.

No worries, I didn't think that your comments came off as aggressive at all, you were good. We're just discussing an idea.

16 hours ago, RTGLoot said:

Perhaps just not give them a tame option would have been a better solution.

I suspect that from WC's point of view it doesn't matter how it gets described, even as a different option. Anything that you can claim permanently is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing as taming. Even if you have to "pay" them on a regular basis any option that gives players permanent control of an animal/person is functionally the equivalent of taming/enslaving. The only way that 'hiring' something could be different would be if they could only be hired ad hoc, on a case-by-case basis, and they have the ability to leave their employer regardless of what the players want. Even then, if the cost to pay them was too trivial or if the chances of them choosing to leave the players' employment was too small then it wouldn't really be any different from taming, it would still be taming/enslaving just with a sly wink-and-a-nod pretending otherwise.

[RTGLoot]

16 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

I've seen people quote them here on the forum, either quoting a tweet or some other social media post. The quotes I saw were responses to other old threads in which people made suggestions similar to yours. It is, for example, the reason they've given for not adding human NPC's to the game. In fairness to you, it's been a long time since I last saw someone post a quote so it's possible that they would consider changing their mind, specifically for a non-human species like centaurs. Even so, this late in the progress of the game I doubt it. The fact that they've never added in any sentient species to tame/enslave/hire/etc pretty much speaks for itself at this point. With their long established history of avoiding adding sentient species to the game combined with the fact that their primary motivation for keeping ARK alive is to maintain the potential audience for ARK 2, it would be pretty darned surprising to see them change that decision now.

They're included for PvP. Taking other players as prisoners is a long way from enslaving sentient non-player creatures.

No worries, I didn't think that your comments came off as aggressive at all, you were good. We're just discussing an idea.

I suspect that from WC's point of view it doesn't matter how it gets described, even as a different option. Anything that you can claim permanently is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing as taming. Even if you have to "pay" them on a regular basis any option that gives players permanent control of an animal/person is functionally the equivalent of taming/enslaving. The only way that 'hiring' something could be different would be if they could only be hired ad hoc, on a case-by-case basis, and they have the ability to leave their employer regardless of what the players want. Even then, if the cost to pay them was too trivial or if the chances of them choosing to leave the players' employment was too small then it wouldn't really be any different from taming, it would still be taming/enslaving just with a sly wink-and-a-nod pretending otherwise.

Thank you. That was really informative.   My interest in the topic mostly stems from the ark 2 trailer revealing the new humanoids. 

[wizard03]

I can feel the love in here