Scorched Earth Thread

[FaneBlackwing]

On 9/2/2016 at 2:39 AM, Purrmaster said:

If Wildcard needed dough, why didn't they charge 5 bucks for the center and 5 bucks for primitive plus?  Yeah, I think asking for donations wouldn't have really worked out.  But those additions are pretty large (but not necessarily vital) pieces of content.  People would have coughed up some money for that.

Because Wildcard didn't make that content?

It'd be pretty arrogant of them to go "Hey we'd like your work to be in the main game" then proceed to make money off of another person's creation, right? Scorched Earth is 100% Wildcard.

[FaneBlackwing]

16 hours ago, Purrmaster said:

My guess is they'll address this more once they come back from PAX.  At least I hope they do.

If all the items and the critters in Scorched Earth are free to all players then perhaps they could this:  Set up some official servers with the SE critters in it.  They'll spawn along with everything else and everyone on the island or center can tame them.  

Also, set up some official servers to not allow SE critters in there.  That way people who don't want to get the expansion can continue to play as normal without having the balance messed up with expansion critters.

They might want to put SE on sale for half price in a couple of weeks as an added salve.

At this point, the expansion and whatever damage it caused is done.  We can only try to make it as fair to everyone as we can.

1) There's nothing to address really. This is all everyone overreacting over new content that is paid 'DLC'. They would address it if it were something like the Titanosaur update, where they threw the update at us with everyone hyped only to realize their Titanosaur would die after a day.(Something they never told us about) The backlash there was understandable, but here? It's hilarious.

2) No, no, no. Not only would that be a huge kick in the teeth to loyal players like I, who BOUGHT the expansion, that would just be giving those who are too cheap to pay for fresh new content exactly what they want. Do you not realize how asinine that is to demand? That's basically shouting: "Hey, I don't want to spend money on this like other people did, so why not just give it to me for free? That sounds fair!" That right there pisses me off to no end that you'd even think that is something they could do to please you.

3) That is a very understandable addition here. Not only does it help keep the Ark island feel prehistoric like most people want it to, but it would also prevent people from starting up on an official vanilla Ark server with creatures from their Scorched Earth server.

4) SE is currently 40% off. Why would they decrease the price even further?

5) The expansion hasn't done any damage. A LOT of people have paid for it already, how is that causing damage? If it caused damage, you would see very few people pay for it or none at all. That is damage done, considering they spent time and money on this little side project. You can say that it 'ruined' the game for some people and that there are people 'pledging' to never play the game again, but we all know that's just all talk and no action. There will always be something to draw someone back to Ark.

[wildbill]

2 hours ago, FaneBlackwing said:

1) There's nothing to address really. This is all everyone overreacting over new content that is paid 'DLC'. They would address it if it were something like the Titanosaur update, where they threw the update at us with everyone hyped only to realize their Titanosaur would die after a day.(Something they never told us about) The backlash there was understandable, but here? It's hilarious.

2) No, no, no. Not only would that be a huge kick in the teeth to loyal players like I, who BOUGHT the expansion, that would just be giving those who are too cheap to pay for fresh new content exactly what they want. Do you not realize how asinine that is to demand? That's basically shouting: "Hey, I don't want to spend money on this like other people did, so why not just give it to me for free? That sounds fair!" That right there pisses me off to no end that you'd even think that is something they could do to please you.

3) That is a very understandable addition here. Not only does it help keep the Ark island feel prehistoric like most people want it to, but it would also prevent people from starting up on an official vanilla Ark server with creatures from their Scorched Earth server.

4) SE is currently 40% off. Why would they decrease the price even further?

5) The expansion hasn't done any damage. A LOT of people have paid for it already, how is that causing damage? If it caused damage, you would see very few people pay for it or none at all. That is damage done, considering they spent time and money on this little side project. You can say that it 'ruined' the game for some people and that there are people 'pledging' to never play the game again, but we all know that's just all talk and no action. There will always be something to draw someone back to Ark.

Wow, someone actually making sense in this thread.

If anything, the SE has help the regular ARK, as it provides needed cash to continue developing the game further.

WC is a company with employees and other expenses to pay, it isn't a charity that can give away stuff for free, I don't understand this idea that SE should be free.

[Purrmaster]

2 hours ago, FaneBlackwing said:

1) There's nothing to address really. This is all everyone overreacting over new content that is paid 'DLC'. They would address it if it were something like the Titanosaur update, where they threw the update at us with everyone hyped only to realize their Titanosaur would die after a day.(Something they never told us about) The backlash there was understandable, but here? It's hilarious.

2) No, no, no. Not only would that be a huge kick in the teeth to loyal players like I, who BOUGHT the expansion, that would just be giving those who are too cheap to pay for fresh new content exactly what they want. Do you not realize how asinine that is to demand? That's basically shouting: "Hey, I don't want to spend money on this like other people did, so why not just give it to me for free? That sounds fair!" That right there pisses me off to no end that you'd even think that is something they could do to please you.

3) That is a very understandable addition here. Not only does it help keep the Ark island feel prehistoric like most people want it to, but it would also prevent people from starting up on an official vanilla Ark server with creatures from their Scorched Earth server.

4) SE is currently 40% off. Why would they decrease the price even further?

5) The expansion hasn't done any damage. A LOT of people have paid for it already, how is that causing damage? If it caused damage, you would see very few people pay for it or none at all. That is damage done, considering they spent time and money on this little side project. You can say that it 'ruined' the game for some people and that there are people 'pledging' to never play the game again, but we all know that's just all talk and no action. There will always be something to draw someone back to Ark.

Well crafted arguments, thank you.

 

1.) I think it would be best to address this because it has kind of split the player base.   A lot of players are very angry and feel let down/betrayed.  And there are even more people who are concerned about the future of the main game.  Has it gone off the rails?  What about the fixes, optimizations, and balancing that the game does sorely need?

Whether you or I or anyone else thinks it's right or not there is  a rift in the community.  And I think it would be in everyone's interest to have Wildcard attempt to heal that rift.

2.)  My understanding is that the devs have said (via their Twitter feeds) that the only content from Scorched Earth that you actually have to pay for is the map.  They have intentionally made all the other game assets free to all players.  They've even posted information on how to enable the new critters on the Island and the Center. People will set up unofficial servers that way if they haven't already.  So why not carry it over to official servers?  People will stay have to buy the DLC to play on the new map.

If the developers have structured the new content in a way that allows for this kind of arrangement, why not do it?

On a personal note whether they set up official servers in such and such a way doesn't affect me.  I only play single player and I already bought the DLC.

4.)  The price reduction would be a gesture towards people that have owned the base game already.  It may also bring back players who have given up on Ark but might be drawn in by a DLC with a lower price point.  The only big downside I see to this is that if they do this soon a lot of people who paid $20 for the DLC may ask for half their money back.  

5.)  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  It seems to me as if there is damage.  I've been looking at these forums for months and I haven't seen this kind of furor before.  There is serious unhappiness in the community.  

And from a business standpoint it's not good have pissed off customers.  It only takes a relatively small number of highly disgruntled people to do damage to the game's reputation and its eventual sales.

[FaneBlackwing]

29 minutes ago, Purrmaster said:

Well crafted arguments, thank you.

 

1.) I think it would be best to address this because it has kind of split the player base.   A lot of players are very angry and feel let down/betrayed.  And there are even more people who are concerned about the future of the main game.  Has it gone off the rails?  What about the fixes, optimizations, and balancing that the game does sorely need?

Whether you or I or anyone else thinks it's right or not there is  a rift in the community.  And I think it would be in everyone's interest to have Wildcard attempt to heal that rift.

2.)  My understanding is that the devs have said (via their Twitter feeds) that the only content from Scorched Earth that you actually have to pay for is the map.  They have intentionally made all the other game assets free to all players.  They've even posted information on how to enable the new critters on the Island and the Center. People will set up unofficial servers that way if they haven't already.  So why not carry it over to official servers?  People will stay have to buy the DLC to play on the new map.

If the developers have structured the new content in a way that allows for this kind of arrangement, why not do it?

On a personal note whether they set up official servers in such and such a way doesn't affect me.  I only play single player and I already bought the DLC.

4.)  The price reduction would be a gesture towards people that have owned the base game already.  It may also bring back players who have given up on Ark but might be drawn in by a DLC with a lower price point.  The only big downside I see to this is that if they do this soon a lot of people who paid $20 for the DLC may ask for half their money back.  

5.)  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  It seems to me as if there is damage.  I've been looking at these forums for months and I haven't seen this kind of furor before.  There is serious unhappiness in the community.  

And from a business standpoint it's not good have pissed off customers.  It only takes a relatively small number of highly disgruntled people to do damage to the game's reputation and its eventual sales.

1) There's been plenty of things that have split the playerbase before, none of them have been awfully serious, mostly just the fact people are not 'getting what was promised'. If they were to comment on everything that 'splits' the playerbase, it would basically be the same reply each time, because it's almost always the same exact thing each and every time. Like I said, they responded to the issue about the Titanosaur/Redwoods biome update because the entire playerbase was upset about it. It wasn't because a handful of people were mad that they have to pay for an expansion before the game is completed.(Something that has been done before in the world of games, most notably in Destiny.) It's literally just pure opinion and they don't need to step in and say something.

2) The thing is, you have access to the creatures and items, as long as somebody in your tribe has access to them. You can't just go on to the Center or Island and run into a Wyvern or a Rock Golem. If nobody were to purchase the Scorched Earth, nobody would have access to them naturally. Incorporating them into vanilla Ark completely renders the Scorched Earth expansion pointless and therefore, would enrage everyone who purchased the expansion. In fact, I'd feel robbed of my money, and I'm pretty sure just about everyone who bought it would as well. Do you honestly think it's fair for those who bought the expansion which is said to include "New items, new creatures, and a new map!" to find out in the future that they spent $20 for just a map? It's not you asking to be fair, it's you asking to be spoiled because you're cheap. It's as simple as that.

4) Again, they have the game 40% off, why would they reduce the price even further?

5) There's literally no damage done to them. They made profit. A couple hundred people upset about paid DLC isn't going to hurt the game's reputation any. So many game's have paid DLC that people get upset about. If that were to be brought up as a complaint, the reaction you'd normally get would be "Okay, but that doesn't answer my question, is the game good?" People don't care about whether a game has paid DLC or not at first glance, they care whether it's a good game or not.

[Purrmaster]

5 minutes ago, FaneBlackwing said:

1) There's been plenty of things that have split the playerbase before, none of them have been awfully serious, mostly just the fact people are not 'getting what was promised'. If they were to comment on everything that 'splits' the playerbase, it would basically be the same reply each time, because it's almost always the same exact thing each and every time. Like I said, they responded to the issue about the Titanosaur/Redwoods biome update because the entire playerbase was upset about it. It wasn't because a handful of people were mad that they have to pay for an expansion before the game is completed.(Something that has been done before in the world of games, most notably in Destiny.) It's literally just pure opinion and they don't need to step in and say something.

2) The thing is, you have access to the creatures and items, as long as somebody in your tribe has access to them. You can't just go on to the Center or Island and run into a Wyvern or a Rock Golem. If nobody were to purchase the Scorched Earth, nobody would have access to them naturally. Incorporating them into vanilla Ark completely renders the Scorched Earth expansion pointless and therefore, would enrage everyone who purchased the expansion. In fact, I'd feel robbed of my money, and I'm pretty sure just about everyone who bought it would as well. Do you honestly think it's fair for those who bought the expansion which is said to include "New items, new creatures, and a new map!" to find out in the future that they spent $20 for just a map? It's not you asking to be fair, it's you asking to be spoiled because you're cheap. It's as simple as that.

4) Again, they have the game 40% off, why would they reduce the price even further?

5) There's literally no damage done to them. They made profit. A couple hundred people upset about paid DLC isn't going to hurt the game's reputation any. So many game's have paid DLC that people get upset about. If that were to be brought up as a complaint, the reaction you'd normally get would be "Okay, but that doesn't answer my question, is the game good?" People don't care about whether a game has paid DLC or not at first glance, they care whether it's a good game or not.

1.)  My contention is that it's more just a handful of people who are upset over the DLC.  It's gotten hairy enough that even the gaming press are reporting on it.  

It may be pure opinion but it's strongly held opinion by quite a lot of people.  If the devs could help create peace and harmony with some statements, isn't that worth trying?

2.) Isn't it common for DLC to be "just maps"?  Isn't that usually what the DLC for first person shooters like Halo and Call of Duty are?  And it's a large map.  Personally I think the map alone is worth the $20 I spent, but your mileage may vary, of course.

3.)  I guess this another area where will have to agree to disagree.  I think putting it on sale would take out some of the sting many people are feeling.  And help bring in more folks from the cold who already own the game.  I'm not going to be irritated if someone else gets it for a lower price later.  Games and DLC go on sale all the time.

4.)  That's an excellent point.  You are correct that most people just care if the game is good.  But a large enough vocal minority can give the impression that a game is not good.  Word of mouth "advertising" is important.  It's why corporations try so hard to control the media narrative.  As I understand it the game's rating on Steam has dropped noticeably since Scorched Earth launched.

Regardless, my original point was that what is done is done and it can't be undone so it would behoove the developers to try and calm things.  At least give acknowledge that people are upset and they may have good reason to be upset.

[FaneBlackwing]

1 minute ago, Purrmaster said:

1.)  My contention is that it's more just a handful of people who are upset over the DLC.  It's gotten hairy enough that even the gaming press are reporting on it.  

It may be pure opinion but it's strongly held opinion by quite a lot of people.  If the devs could help create peace and harmony with some statements, isn't that worth trying?

2.) Isn't it common for DLC to be "just maps"?  Isn't that usually what the DLC for first person shooters like Halo and Call of Duty are?  And it's a large map.  Personally I think the map alone is worth the $20 I spent, but your mileage may vary, of course.

3.)  I guess this another area where will have to agree to disagree.  I think putting it on sale would take out some of the sting many people are feeling.  And help bring in more folks from the cold who already own the game.  I'm not going to be irritated if someone else gets it for a lower price later.  Games and DLC go on sale all the time.

4.)  That's an excellent point.  You are correct that most people just care if the game is good.  But a large enough vocal minority can give the impression that a game is not good.  Word of mouth "advertising" is important.  It's why corporations try so hard to control the media narrative.  As I understand it the game's rating on Steam has dropped noticeably since Scorched Earth launched.

Regardless, my original point was that what is done is done and it can't be undone so it would behoove the developers to try and calm things.  At least give acknowledge that people are upset and they may have good reason to be upset.

1) The reason why so many people are upset is because when you get to the core of things it's this:

For over a year we've been getting free content at least biweekly, then suddenly we get a massive content drop, but it's for $20. Everybody has been so used to the free content and the consistent pampering that Wildcard has been giving us, and now that we actually have to pay for some additional content if we want it, they get upset. If this was free content there would be no reason to complain. Even if they still labelled it as DLC and said it was not apart of the main game.

Plus just about EVERY gaming press writes about the negative side of things simply because just like real world media, it stirs the pot and causes drama.

2) You're comparing apples to oranges here. A first person shooter is completely unrelated to a prehistoric survival game. Everything about them are totally different. The map is large sure, but honestly, it's maybe 1.5x larger than the Island, and is nowhere as large as The Center. It's like buying Ark a second time, just without creatures-- in a sense.

3) How would lowering the price to 50% 'take out the sting'? You're not going to care if you already own the game, you have a chance right now to get it 40% off original price, if you don't already have it, want it, and don't get it now, don't be expecting them to drop it to 50% anytime soon.

4) Not many people rely on game media outlets when purchasing games, because like I stated before, they usually highlight the negative bits too dramatically. Like Pokemon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire for example? Yeah that 7.8/10- "Too much water" from IGN is still running around because it's laughable. If you are relying on these sites to see whether a game is good or not, then that's kinda silly. The best way to do so is hopping on the site and forums(If the game has forums like Ark does) and ask what the game is like, what the main goals are, etc... That's the best way you can get information on a game you're considering on purchasing. Not some silly gaming media outlet that just reports on whatever they see a community complaining about.

All in all, this whole 'Scorched Earth Debacle' is being over dramatized and give it a month or so and nobody will give a hoot about it.

Plus, in Jat's recent update not even 3 hours ago, he specifically states this:

" Scorched Earth: Our original vision for ARK always included the creation of Expansion ARKs, along with the infrastructure and technical systems to transfer data dynamically between live ARKs. We determined that it is more sound to iterate on these systems during Early Access than after retail launch, given the significant risks involved if we didn't "get it right". While that meant unveiling the first Expansion early, it also means an easier time integrating further post-launch Expansions into the ARK network. We understand that this isn't everyone's cup of tea, and we appreciate the enjoyment people seem to be getting out of this initial view of how Expansion ARKs can work. Now that we have the systems in place to support them, we can ensure minimal integration issues with subsequent releases after ARK: Survival Evolved itself has launched. "

This literally says that Scorched Earth was a test so they could get post-release expansions done right and better in the future. There's no reason to complain, it's just people desperately trying to find the bad in everything, honestly.

[Insomniak]

For everyone complaining about this expansion please, please just shut up. Don't just be quiet but shut your mouth and fingers off you have 0 valid complaints. Me and the wife used to pay 40 dollars every month for 4 wow accounts not to mention the hundreds of dollars for the expansions. We play ark on Xbox each have 2 accounts we play for the high cost every month of.. Free. Had to drop a whopping 120 bucks on games and expansions and ya that's a lot of money to me we have 5 kids that the government isn't raising so unless WC decides to put a sub on ark nobody and I mean nobody has any valid gripe about this game costing anything significant. It's an early release game with no support they shouldnt be adding expansions! ... Again shush we all know this really isn't an "alpha or beta" I'm sure the only thing keeping the game off shelves is lawyers and timing.

[DeathRides16]

I don't care about the whole paid dlc before launch I would honestly love to see more sinks come to scorched earth.

[Rintrahhh]

3 hours ago, Insomniak said:

For everyone complaining about this expansion please, please just shut up.

If we all shut up then there will be no discussion in this general discussion forum. 

[OGCookies]

Absolutely love the new map and how challenging it is keep the great updates comming thanks wildcard

[DrSA]

Popping in to vent as well.

Things I'm sure have already been established and I am double tapping.

>Putting out a paid dlc before your game is even released was a poor choice. Economically I'm sure it was smart in that it is pulling in revenue, but that's the crux, it works that way because it's shady and overtly so. Like a nice open palm slap to the customer.

>The fact that any time was diverted from the development of the main game is terrible, even more terrible if it was done so you can release something that is better quality dlc then the game itself. "... this expansion pack represents much more closely the final look and feel and polish of the game. We've been working on it for a long time." is a quoted comment from the developer http://www.polygon.com/features/2016/9/1/12719278/ark-survival-evolved-scorched-earth-dlc

I stopped playing the game months ago in hope that it would be released in full and could be better enjoyed. instead, all the extra effort went into making a way to get more cash. So vocal minority, or mostly silent majority, can't say for sure. I can say that I hope this storm of negative press lays waste to the idea of any developer following suite. What I truly wish for, is for valve chime in and stomp this bullspit out. Best scenario, full refund to all scorch dlc purchases, this dlc to be given free to owners of the core game, finish the core game, and a nice pr push to really emphasize how shady moves like this shouldn't be welcome in the market. Maybe a nice for-show employee termination, really place that blame on one martyr's shoulders.

 

Funny, the underlined best scenario seems like the least likely one to happen.

[LordStokes]

47 minutes ago, DrSA said:

Popping in to vent as well.

Things I'm sure have already been established and I am double tapping.

>Putting out a paid dlc before your game is even released was a poor choice. Economically I'm sure it was smart in that it is pulling in revenue, but that's the crux, it works that way because it's shady and overtly so. Like a nice open palm slap to the customer.

>The fact that any time was diverted from the development of the main game is terrible, even more terrible if it was done so you can release something that is better quality dlc then the game itself. "... this expansion pack represents much more closely the final look and feel and polish of the game. We've been working on it for a long time." is a quoted comment from the developer http://www.polygon.com/features/2016/9/1/12719278/ark-survival-evolved-scorched-earth-dlc

 

As posted above, Ark expansions and Cross Ark Transfers have been a feature that has always been intended to be included in the games development.  These kind of new features require extensive testing and where better to test these features than on a very large early release player base to iron out the concept.  You do realize that this is the point of early release, to allow the developers to iron out the concepts of the game before it is finalized.  

Time and effort was not diverted away from the main game, as stated earlier expansions and transfers have always been apart of the game model, and the new expansion largely functions in the same way as Vanilla Ark.  New content is added all of the time that changes the experience of the game...  why now is this a problem?

im seeing a lot of complaining about this game, if it's not your cup of tea then move on to something else you enjoy.  Stomping your feet like a child is going to get you anywhere.  

Scorched Earth is a great concept, and I can't wait to see what else they have in store for us

[LordStokes]

On 9/6/2016 at 1:00 AM, FaneBlackwing said:

In case anyone else wants to complain about the dlc being released early here is the quote I referenced above;

Plus, in Jat's recent update not even 3 hours ago, he specifically states this:

" Scorched Earth: Our original vision for ARK always included the creation of Expansion ARKs, along with the infrastructure and technical systems to transfer data dynamically between live ARKs. We determined that it is more sound to iterate on these systems during Early Access than after retail launch, given the significant risks involved if we didn't "get it right". While that meant unveiling the first Expansion early, it also means an easier time integrating further post-launch Expansions into the ARK network. We understand that this isn't everyone's cup of tea, and we appreciate the enjoyment people seem to be getting out of this initial view of how Expansion ARKs can work. Now that we have the systems in place to support them, we can ensure minimal integration issues with subsequent releases after ARK: Survival Evolved itself has launched. "

This literally says that Scorched Earth was a test so they could get post-release expansions done right and better in the future. There's no reason to complain, it's just people desperately trying to find the bad in everything, honestly.

So in other words they are testing a concept that is going to be a core game mechanic i.e. Cross Ark Transfer and Map Expansions. 

And to the ones complaining about the new tames ruining the immersion of the game, most of the vanilla tames are heavily fantasized as well I.e the Quetzal which was so large it couldn't fly.  No one said that this game was going to be solely about Dino's, it just so happens that the Ark they decided to release to us first has them in it. 

Also, please don't "pop in to vent" as it causes you to miss the fact that what you are posting has been covered multiple times in the same thread, if you are going to post a rant at least take the time to read a few pages to make sure u aren't beating a dead horse.  

[Dimetime35c]

Hey okay so obviously the whole paid DLC idea you had blew up in your face. I know you won't read this but a but of advice. Next time you try this just be honest with us. I'm thinking the reason you did this had to do with your 40$ million dollar court settlement. Im almost sure that put a BIG dent in the money you have left to finish the rest of the game. Okay fine if you needed the money just be up front with us. Tell us hey guys we may need a gofundme campaign to make sure the game is finished. I would be more then happy to give money to help finish the game if needed. However using funds we gave you to make the base game on a paid expansion is NOT the way to do it! 

[Dimetime35c]

7 hours ago, LordStokes said:

So in other words they are testing a concept that is going to be a core game mechanic i.e. Cross Ark Transfer and Map Expansions. 

And to the ones complaining about the new tames ruining the immersion of the game, most of the vanilla tames are heavily fantasized as well I.e the Quetzal which was so large it couldn't fly.  No one said that this game was going to be solely about Dino's, it just so happens that the Ark they decided to release to us first has them in it. 

Also, please don't "pop in to vent" as it causes you to miss the fact that what you are posting has been covered multiple times in the same thread, if you are going to post a rant at least take the time to read a few pages to make sure u aren't beating a dead horse.  

Idk where you get your info from but you may want to check it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatlus if you read that you'll see in fact the quetz WAS more then capable of flight. Yes ark stretches the truth of what some dinos may have been like. However it does make an attempt to stay true to what we know from bones. 

[FaneBlackwing]

15 hours ago, Dimetime35c said:

Idk where you get your info from but you may want to check it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatlus if you read that you'll see in fact the quetz WAS more then capable of flight. Yes ark stretches the truth of what some dinos may have been like. However it does make an attempt to stay true to what we know from bones. 

You do realize where you got your info from, correct? Anybody can edit Wikipedia, that is in no way a reliable source, and paleontologists actually think the Quetzalcoatlus may have been flightless due to being too large.

Ark drastically messes with the Dinos, very few actually stay true to their actual fossils. The sizes of Giganotosaurs, Titanosaurs, Mosasaurs, Plesiosaurs, etc... are insanely over-exaggerated. Then you have Dilophosaurs which don't have frills and couldn't spit venom, marine reptiles not needing oxygen, Titanoboa having frills, Styracosaurus/Triceratops hybrid being the Triceratops we see in-game, Procoptodons being able to hop and move backwards(Which their fossils suggest they couldn't do either), etc...

It's a fictional game for a reason though. Most things are going to be over-exaggerated or scientifically incorrect.

[Med]

On 9/2/2016 at 2:34 AM, Yazinda said:

sorry, but i dunno if i should laugh or cry ...

first at all: i really love this game. the gfx, dino models and animations as well as the world designs incl. wether are fantastic. BUT...

the original game is still alpha and got more flaws then a 20 yrs old streetdog. why the heck u guys dont fix the major bugs first, let the game run stabil and smoothy, release it. after this is done... u can consider to release an expanison pack for...uhm... 4 € max.? do u really like to pi.. ur existing customers off?

should i list some major issues/bugs? here we go:

- tamed dinos still vanish w/o any reasons

- wild dinos spawn INSIDE solid structures ( uh wait.... there aint any "solid" structures yet. sorry guys my fault )

- players, dinos, eggs etc. falling thru ceilings and even "solid" (here is this word again!) foundations

- dinos can attack u thru walls / destroy ur stuff inside...

- if u are using fence foundations to build a wall out of dino gates and u will remove ONE on... let me say west side... one or more gates on north, east or south side will be destroyed as well. same counts for walls.

- its raining INSIDE (no, i dont wanna use the so... word again! ) buildings? the house symbol/icon in ONE structure is there, there not, there again...i could go on?

- snapped structure tiles dont seem to fit into another

- falling thru the ground into nowhere

- rafts are stucking in the river (atleast at The Center) w/o any reason. even if u dive around/under them... u cant find the reason

- dinos/stuff falling off rafts / quetzals while moving

- its raining dinos from rocks, trees and sky (?)... fix the spawn spoints / their height

i can go on and on and listen even more bugs... but ill stop here.

So guys... do u need the earnings of the expansion pack to hire professional devs/coders? ur existing staff seems to be bunch "beginners".

 

and now im stopping here with one question "why u NEVER give us any statements about the fixing of the above mentioned issues?"

Yours

Yaz

 

You know what in my 1k+ hours of game play i have never ever had a dino vanish for no reason. There has never been a dino I couldn't find. There is always a reason. You left it on follow you left it on neutral. It got pushed out of or over a wall. It's still where you haven't looked. Yes I have found dino's after losing them for 2 weeks but their location has been close to near we have given up looking for them and after inspecting where they were has always made sense. The only exception to this was that before Airdrops could push a dino through the map however that never happened to me either.

[Yazinda]

On 12.9.2016 at 11:05 AM, Med said:

You know what in my 1k+ hours of game play i have never ever had a dino vanish for no reason. There has never been a dino I couldn't find. There is always a reason. You left it on follow you left it on neutral. It got pushed out of or over a wall. It's still where you haven't looked. Yes I have found dino's after losing them for 2 weeks but their location has been close to near we have given up looking for them and after inspecting where they were has always made sense. The only exception to this was that before Airdrops could push a dino through the map however that never happened to me either.

it isn't only me who lost dinos that way on my server. spawning ressources can also push dinos thru the ground and i know a special spot in my base. so i avoid this spot to prevent losing dinos again.

Yaz

p.s.: im stupid but im not blonde

[illpotato]

On ‎1‎-‎9‎-‎2016 at 9:02 PM, Kimsie said:

Indeed. Dragons? How is that not gonna be better than what everyone else has, even if you can try to explain away how the rest isn't? (which I wouldn't agree with anyhow as they bring new, unique things, to the table!)

Ever tried a mc saddle on a pteri with 295 movement speed?

With the turning circle of a truck you'll wreck the guy bro

[Igloo]

Is there a way to turn the visual effect of heat stroke off? It hurts my  eyes.