Unrealistic art in the creature votes.

[Matteu]

I feel like using custom art in the creature votes makes it impossible for 95% of people to get past page 2. the top 10 always have amazing art that does not resemble the animal in question at all think of: miracornyx chimerarachne the motobite. i feel like it would be more fair to the majority of the people participating if we were only allowed to use actual reconstructions, fossils and living relatives to make clear what animal you are actually voting for. that means you can still make art but it has to be a scientificly accurate reconstruction and you can make art of their abilities. i think this would level the playing field so that really ANYONE can get their creature into the top 10. 

 

This one is for all my homies in page 3-15

Edited July 12, 2023 by Matteu

[Luux]

No offense but this just sounds like you complaining about the people who actually have the art when the only reason it'd be a problem is for the population that doesn't wanna read. Those people already wont vote for things that are logically or common sense wise accurate in terms of basic physics and believable reaches of science fiction as opposed to big lizard that noms and spits fire and wins in a fight vs the sun.

I get it but don't put down the people that do have art on their posts, it does help visualize things sometimes even if the devs themselves are 50/50 on whether they make a great, much more clean and concise interpretation of the creature voted in and proposed or takes a headfirst dive into a dumpster that has been set on fire like a plane crashing into a radioactive nuclear plants waste dumping zone.

But it does not decide things certainly and if people don't wanna read the posts it's their own fault. Not the people who put in the work to type the. I myself am not that great at Art enough to make the kinds of pieces that people are posting in dossiers abd the such but I have my own finger doodles on my phones note app that I am proud of because they habe a simplistic and hilarious style that fits Ark in meme form even if it has not a single perfect circle. 

I myself posted 3 submissions that a low on votes, the first one getting merged into another cause I hasn't seen it first and the second having no images until I decided to pit in some basic images for scale of it compared to other creatures of its general group of species and humans. The images help a lot and that's why I wanted to actually draw the ones for my third cause they are very good at showing the design of the creature and its abilities, and they are literal scribbles on a phone.

So chill a little. It's not fun to think the art is giving people an unfair advantage but if the Fasolsuchus told us anything its that the art isn't going to win the devs over even if people abuse the voting, which they do anyway since they reach out on other sites to get votes or try to bank their creature ok concepts, which while cool we know how the Ark devs are not exactly the kind to add an armor type or new weapon or a Tek Saddle just like that unless it's actually fitting and such. The only devs who are more cautious at adding content honestly is Minecraft's and its only recently they've been improving their way of showing and pushing content.

If you're worried that the high fidelity art is giving people unfair advantages then realize most of those posts also come with creatures people think are cool and interesting anyway, are creatures people voted before that the people keep posting sometimes to its and other creatures detriment or just big thing that go brr and those people are not reliable enough to convince to vote with art anyway. If you're voting based on art your making a mistake and shouldn't be even voting at all, cause st that point you're not voting even for the creature in any way but appearances, the least valuable aspect of it. Cause it won't be guaranteed whereas at least the general ideas and stuff supplied by suggestions for mechanics and abilities will inspire if not get into the finished creature.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Luux

[Joebl0w13]

Don't tear other people down. Step up your game.

The people that put in that extra effort get results. 

[Matteu]

its a vote for an extinct creature nothing more nothing less the ark devs can make art for it. also not everyone can make art and as the earlier guy said his doodles still didnt get him far it is simply unfair to tell 95% of people they need to become artists.

[Joebl0w13]

1 minute ago, Matteu said:

it is simply unfair to tell 95% of people they need to become artists

Where did you ever get the idea anything in life is fair?

Some people are naturally gifted artists. Some aren't. 

Some have a way with words, some not have way.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Joebl0w13

[Matteu]

Id say that if you are running a community vote for a real world creature the art would have to be of a real world creature to its common sense. you can still make art but it has to be realistic to the real world creature. isnt one of the rules of the vote only real life creatures allowed? so why can chimerarachne be some kind of eldrich horror?

Edited July 12, 2023 by Matteu

[Joebl0w13]

2 hours ago, Matteu said:

Id say that if you are running a community vote for a real world creature the art would have to be of a real world creature to its common sense. you can still make art but it has to be realistic to the real world creature. isnt one of the rules of the vote only real life creatures allowed? so why can chimerarachne be some kind of eldrich horror?

 

If that were the case all the art would look like this, since nobody actually knows what they looked like.

All art is interpretation.

 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Joebl0w13

[Matteu]

gigantoraptor was fine with the speculative feathers because in some areas you can only speculate that doesnt mean that you can suddenly toss aside everything we do know about the actual animal just to fit your own narative. we know a fair bit about a lot of extinct animals these days to the point where we have mummified dinosaurs and full fossils like the one nodosaur. we dont know the colours of the animals but we do know chimerarachne was not an eldrich horror and that trilobites never had wheels in them.

which would in turn make them fantasy creatures thus not allowed by the rules.

 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Matteu

[Matteu]

here i changed it a little bit because this is my main issue with it

[Joebl0w13]

1 minute ago, Matteu said:

gigantoraptor was fine with the speculative feathers because in some areas you can only speculate that doesnt mean that you can suddenly toss aside everything we do know about the actual animal just to fit your own narative. we know a fair bit about a lot of extinct animals these days to the point where we have mummified dinosaurs and full fossils like the one nodosaur. we dont know the colours of the animals but we do know chimerarachne was not an eldrich horror and that trilobites never had wheels in them.

which would in turn make them fantasy creatures thus not allowed by the rules.

 

We are talking about this game right?

[Matteu]

tell me if im wrong that its a rule

only real life extinct animals

motobite is not a real life extinct animal and thats just one example 

ill wait untill another mod or admin sees this that does take the conversation seriously because you havent responded with one solid point to any of my arguments.

[Joebl0w13]

2 minutes ago, Matteu said:

ill wait untill another mod or admin sees this that does take the conversation seriously because you havent responded with one solid point to any of my arguments.

Sure I have. If a creature is still left up to be voted on. WildCard is fine with it. 

[Joebl0w13]

8 minutes ago, Matteu said:

motobite is not a real life extinct animal and thats just one example 

Sure it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexicalymene

People have been allowed to post any version of an animal that was at one point, real and extinct. 

[Matteu]

Still not the real thing

[Matteu]

yes it is a real animal i read the dossier but it is simply so different from the real life counterpart that its not a real animal anymore

[Pipinghot]

2 hours ago, Joebl0w13 said:

Where did you ever get the idea anything in life is fair?

Some people are naturally gifted artists. Some aren't. 

Some have a way with words, some not have way.

Some are multiple talent gifts in polymathoid all having knows.

[Pipinghot]

2 hours ago, Joebl0w13 said:

We are talking about this game right?

Where did you find my high school yearbook photo?

I blame social media.

[Pipinghot]

3 hours ago, Matteu said:

I feel like using custom art in the creature votes makes it impossible for 95% of people to get past page 2. the top 10 always have amazing art that does not resemble the animal in question at all think of: miracornyx chimerarachne the motobite. i feel like it would be more fair to the majority of the people participating if we were only allowed to use actual reconstructions, fossils and living relatives to make clear what animal you are actually voting for. that means you can still make art but it has to be a scientificly accurate reconstruction and you can make art of their abilities. i think this would level the playing field so that really ANYONE can get their creature into the top 10.

So here's the thing. You're right that WildCard is two-faced about the whole concept of "real" creature. Therefore arguing WildCard should require/provide a level playing field for the artwork doesn't make any sense when you already know that they're two-faced about what qualifies as "real". Clearly "real" doesn't mean "real" when WC says it, so there's no reason to believe they would require real images of fossils or strictly science-based drawings of the creatures being discussed. The truth is they don't care about what's real, they only use reality as a starting point and then what truly matters is whether the idea is good and/or fun in the game.

This is a game in which players are scientific experiments stored in data banks until they are generated in the physical world by ultra-intelligent computers and live out their lives in biospheres where they are able to tame and ride animals that would have been neither tameable nor rideable. "Real", "reality" and "realism" are, at best, tenuous concepts inside of a game like this.

[CervantesMor]

3 hours ago, Matteu said:

yes it is a real animal i read the dossier but it is simply so different from the real life counterpart that its not a real animal anymore

Yes but... Given that we understand your point of view on which it might seem to you that a better elaborated creature makes itself more attractive than one that ""this is the creature I propose: Xxxxxcephalotaurusxxxxxx of the time yyyyy behaving zzzzzzzz, WC insert the Art more suitable for it ingame"" because many players fall in love with some skills that make them more comfortable or like them better, so according to your concept that creature could be voted ONLY for the Art described * (here I put an asterisk because I would like to add an my opinion at the end of the message), but I refer you to the first answer Lux gave you, who with great honesty and simplicity tried to make you understand other points of view as well, which in my impression you did not understand the right meaning of what he wanted to explain to you and that then Joe is trying to say it in different ways.

 

If you have followed the WildCard CCs and if you have understood all the rules, you would know that WildCard has always clearly specified that the part concerning the "skills" and the "behavioural and physical characteristics" (therefore the Art you mean) of the winning creatures will be elaborated exclusively by WC itself to insert themselves in the most correct way in the game (according to WC's assessment) and which could drastically differ with the original Art of whoever proposed the creature, both whoever proposes the creatures and who among us votes for them he knows a priori that it is not the Art that conquers the victory (since it is specified and repeated at each opening of the votes). But, the more inventiveness and details we manage to create, the more ideas we can all have to comment on those aspects and add our suggestions or disapprovals, from which we can then take inspiration for the final features that we like or better suit the game as a whole (some of the suggestions or characteristics could even be considered by WC for future creatures other than those from which that Art comes or inserted into the Tlc of some already existing creature to which that characteristic or environment or map fits better). When Ark was created none of us chose what creatures could be there... those were studied by WC with specific Abilities to the functioning of the game as they conceived it and as we know it; today WC gives us the possibility to vote these creations precisely to implement missing and complementary functions/skills/utilities, so if you reflect on this, it is almost more logical to support the opinion of voting for the Art rather than the Dino similar to himself because it is in the Ark universe that it really has to be inserted.

 

* many of us vote for the creature that comes closest to personal preferences (I like this real Dino and I'd like to have him in the Ark regardless of what abilities/behaviors WC decides to attribute to him -- or -- I would like those abilities in Ark and that's why I vote) rather than the complementary integration of the creature itself into the Ark ecosystem: in my opinion both things balance each other out precisely because the final aim is to receive a creature that integrates well and also offers qualities that are interesting or lacking in Ark ((not in a real life zoo where we just go to admire a Dino as it really was, rather it is a Dino to be included in our beloved game with its nuances of " surreal and creative skills" designed for a GAME where this is precisely the fulcrum of the interest of all of us players (in our case it is more correct to say Survivors ). Furthermore, I think that whoever puts his effort into developing in the most designed and detailed specifically to hit the mark on both points fully deserves our esteem and approval, the preference of a real Dino (excluding the Art) over another is purely subjective but in order to be included in Ark it MUST also satisfy the requirements of the game itself and therefore "Skills/etc." because we are not voting to include it in JurassicWorld but for Ark where the fundamental peculiarity of the Dinos are precisely the Skills.

Edited July 12, 2023 by CervantesMor

[ElGrounded]

Thats true 

[Gecko1611]

On 7/12/2023 at 1:19 PM, Joebl0w13 said:

Sure it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexicalymene

People have been allowed to post any version of an animal that was at one point, real and extinct. 

So, what if someone submitted Pikachu but gave it the name of a real animal like Ectopocynus to let it count? Don't get me wrong, people should be able to alter the creature from its real-life form to make it a more interesting ARK creature, but there should be some sort of limit.

On 7/12/2023 at 12:47 PM, Joebl0w13 said:

Where did you ever get the idea anything in life is fair?

Some people are naturally gifted artists. Some aren't. 

Some have a way with words, some not have way.

I totally agree with that. However, some people may have super amazing ideas but no art skills or access to people with them. Their amazing idea would then fail, even though it would totally succeed if they had an amazing illustration to show. Likewise, some people put next to 0 effort into their submission but only get it high up because they bought an illustration from a big name.

[Joebl0w13]

35 minutes ago, Gecko1611 said:

So, what if someone submitted Pikachu but gave it the name of a real animal like Ectopocynus to let it count?

WildCard seems to be perfectly ok with that as it's been a staple of the creature votes for a while now.

[Joebl0w13]

56 minutes ago, Gecko1611 said:

Likewise, some people put next to 0 effort into their submission but only get it high up because they bought an illustration from a big name.

Agreed. Like I said. Life isn't fair. 

[Matteu]

1 hour ago, Gecko1611 said:

So, what if someone submitted Pikachu but gave it the name of a real animal like Ectopocynus to let it count? Don't get me wrong, people should be able to alter the creature from its real-life form to make it a more interesting ARK creature, but there should be some sort of limit.

I totally agree with that. However, some people may have super amazing ideas but no art skills or access to people with them. Their amazing idea would then fail, even though it would totally succeed if they had an amazing illustration to show. Likewise, some people put next to 0 effort into their submission but only get it high up because they bought an illustration from a big name.

Maybe it would be an idea to say that its not allowed to change major features of the animal. Like the myotragus one, that didn't have the real life myotragus googly eyes. Or how Yi qi currently just doesn't have the signature Yi qi face. Like not being allowed to remove major features that are signature to the animal could help.

[Gecko1611]

1 hour ago, Joebl0w13 said:

WildCard seems to be perfectly ok with that as it's been a staple of the creature votes for a while now.

Yeah, exactly and that's a problem. Unfortunately, I don't see a good way to fix that. At least most people probably won't even vote on it if it's that far from the real thing.