Jump to content

HoboNation

Members
  • Content Count

    183
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A

Community Reputation

95 First Tame

2 Followers

About HoboNation

  • Rank
    Cloth Armor

Personal Information

  • ARK Platforms Owned
    PC

Recent Profile Visitors

310 profile views
  1. If this is how PvP functioned, where after destroying a few walls or doors you suddenly can't go any further then I would stop playing ark period.... This could be so exploited, people would just build bases with enough obstacles so you would never get to the loot before the "raid protection kicks in" and gives them time to replace the structures which were destroyed. You would never get anything out of a raid and raiding would become pointless, And at that stage it is pretty much a stone throw away from being straight up PvE.
  2. I mean pretty much every survival always online game works this way though???? and you are wondering how it's a good business model to have the safety of your progress not be a guarantee, Pretty much what you are complaining about is one of the biggest draws to the game, the challenge risk and competitiveness of having to defend yourself and having yourself be at risk of losing everything. I mean look at rust, in rust even if you arent wiped by other players, the servers wipe at minimum once a month, so everyone is guaranteed to have to start again. What you are looking for OP sounds like PVE with war declaration rules, so PVE with some PVP thrown in there, thats the thing about ark there are many game modes to sate the experience you are looking for. I love the brutality of official PVP which is why I play it, I go a step further though and specifically play on Arkpocalypse which is monthly wipe servers as I much prefer everyone being wiped after a month and we all have to start the grind again together and be on an even playing field once more, the map goes back to looking wild and beautiful, all the laggy messes and blown bases disappear, and everyone goes back to being on an even footing to once more compete for dominance and survival, I love that experience. So coming here to say how is it a good business model because you would prefer to never lose anything is a bit of a subjective statement. Plenty of people love that aspect of Ark and I for one would get bored if there was no real threat of ever losing my progress. I am pretty sure the phenomenon of players leaving the game is not rooted in the nature of PvP, I am sure things like meshing, exploits, glitches, unintended character losses or tame losses or certain broken mechanics are a much bigger factor than the nature of PvP. Anyone who isnt happy with the PvP of officials has plenty of other servers to try out with their own rules adjustments and tweaks to how PvP is conducted. Finally I don't see that "hardly over 30 players you are talking about. The servers I play on, namely Arkpocalypse, are almost always full at the beginning of a wipe, they drop off to about 20 players by the end of the month but then shoot back up to 60+ once the wipe happens. recently most of the valguero maps also were sitting at over 50 players. was hard finding an active one that wasn't capped out already. I would have to say I disagree with your sentiments about PvP killing this game, I'm afraid I just don't believe that is true.
  3. Most servers have a rule limiting how long you can have someone captured for, it's usually around half an hour, so no they arent allowed to keep you in there forever, unless you are on a server with no admin governance or a server with weird rules around being imprisoned, just try to get in touch with an admin and ask for help and they will hopefully be forced to set you free or get banned. As for why it is a feature well, picture that you are trying to tame something and some guy makes it his mission to try and screw it up for you, everytime you kill him he comes back naked and just tries to punch your taming creature so you lose effectiveness, and yes this happens a lot, it actually is surprising how many players first instinct is to attack a taming creature even something silly like a parasaur or dilo. I have players who run past and immediately start attacking my tame, I come out of a bush and am like "DILO man" they then stop realizing you are watching and get all apologetic. But when they first thought no one was around they were perfectly happy to punch that parasaur to death... So a a method to deal with an annoying player who just wants to mess with your taming stuff is to cage him instead of killing him, me and some friends have done this a few times, Build a little shack for him, someone keeps watch of him and feeding him Narco's or just is ready to keep tranqing him, and you keep him there till your creature is tamed or you finish whatever you were doing in that area then release the annoying player and you all go on your merry ways.
  4. Well that sucks... I suppose that makes Rag the top Raft base map, water access over the entire map but no leedsy.
  5. Leeds arent a problem if you just sink the foundations into the raft properly I believe.
  6. I prefer Rafts, especially on Rag or the island due to the full map access by water. Thing with a raft is it is more easily hidden which is one of the main reasons to opting for raft over a fixed base location, Also A raft has the potential to be more durable to damage and other shinanigans. A bronto base will be tied to the bronto you attach it to, so if anything ever happens to it... thats it base gone, reason I say this is an important factor is that sure a Bronto has more hp that a raft or even the structures on a raft, but remember depending on if you make the raft base out of metal or stone etc, only certain things will be able to damage it, where as a bronto can be damaged by literally anything, a dilo could get aggrod on your passive bronto when you log off and sit there attacking it for a full day, next thing bam no more bronto or base. I mean picture a pack of allos or something aggro'd onto your bronto which is not able to out run them. That is an anxiety nightmare knowing that if the bronto dies there goes your base too. Meanwhile with a raft, you get aggrod by some nasty dino's heck use the raft for saftey and to get away. With sunk metal foundations not even a leedsy is gonna touch your raft hp.... Meanwhile leave your bronto on passive and a roaming pack of compys could essentially demo your entire base.
  7. If you are logging tickets and still not receiving any support, I am afraid there isn't much more you can do I know it's rough and I really feel for your situation, there should be better protocols in place for when this kind of thing happens so that it can be resolved in a timely manner and with as little client frustration as possible. Especially in a game that focuses so much on grind and time dedication. The absolute worst thing you can do to a customer that has invested a vast amount of time in your product is to turn around and say we can't help you recover YOUR lost time from OUR OWN screw ups, and that pretty much your time has been wasted. If that ever happened to me and WC was firstly really slow with their response, and then secondly if when they eventually responded it was only to tell me there isn't anything they can do... I would never buy a product of theirs again and would uninstall my ark faster than you can say alt+f4 and shift+delete. I really hope they tend to your tickets soon and are indeed able to recover at least some of what has been lost. I can give you a heads up based on what I have seen others say, that usually they can only restore character levels up to a point and that any levels above that need to be farmed again essentially. The base they may respawn the mats that you would need to rebuild it, but the dinos are usually something to consider gone. Also they can't bring your character back, essentially they will likely ask you to create a new character and then they may use admin commands to level that new char up to as close to your previous lost chars level as they can. Kind of a bittersweet resolution I know but it is better then if they tell you they can't assist. Hopefully they will try to restore your stuff, just be persistent.
  8. Edit: I had a whole post about how Im not straw manning you I was questioning why you are lumping the arguments of people whose posts are in line with and agree with your own with the same people who you disagree with. But I am editing this as I misread your previous post, I thought you were implying no one was addressing the core issue of war declaration being the crux of the issue, Re reading it I see you said "barely anyone" so I withdraw my statement. I have already shown that I too think it is war declaration that needs to be the focus as well. Removing it entirely I can't say whether it would be protested or not as like I said before I don't play PvE so I don't have the authority or experience in those communities to cast a stone on that issue, But definitely some kind of amendment is required. The way it is now with people being dragged into wars that they may have had no hand in starting, and also having no way other than not using alliances at all to safe guard themselves from being scammed as OP was... It really isn't a very fair mechanic.
  9. Say what now??? are we reading the same thread? a large portion of suggestions including my own have been to adjust the war declaration mechanic and not the alliance mechanic??????????? I am confused now, My suggestions was literally players should have a 24 hour period to decide whether they want to stay in an alliance when war is declared instead of just being instantly forced into your allies war. A message in the tribe log that says "your ally is at war and you will automatically be joined on your allys side in 24 hours if you stay in this alliance" or something to that effect. Something like that would not effect PvP. Also this is a suggestion coming from a PvP player, thats right I don't even play PvE but I can still sympathize with those getting harmed by this faulty mechanic and am offering up suggestions, suggestions which won't ever benefit me in the slightest. You said you play PvE but seem to be so against this entire thread and everyone trying to suggest solutions? Maybe I am wrong but that is just how it is coming across.
  10. This is is a much more valid argument and reasoning. I can see this as a problem also, I remember reading about tribes who would create a fake proxy tribe and ally with it so that they use it to build around their actual base so as to have their base be protected by ORP even while they are online as the "ally" tribe they created would just be always offline and have it's ORP on while their base which is inside the psuedo "ally tribe". I guess what you are saying is that people would be able to do a similar thing if war was optional. I can sympathize with that. It's a tricky issue you are right, either solution seems to have it's draw backs and the way it is now is already riddled with draw backs. With this in mind I withdraw my previous solution as it clearly has opportunity for further exploitation. Maybe a possible solution then would be to have it as an optional choice but if the ally declines to help then it puts you and them at war automatically. So if people are trying to use a merged defense and then don't accept to go to war then their defenses will turn on each other so they can't use it as an exploit. Although I will say I don't really like that solution either but I don't like the way it is now or the potential exploitation of previously suggested solutions (including the one I approved in my previous post) So when your ally goes to war they have maybe 24 hours to accept or decline or it automatically accepts to join on the side of your ally, if however during that period you choose to decline then you are automatically set to be at war with that ally. Another possible solution, and I am just spit balling here, could be to simply have a time delay on how long it takes your ally to be pulled into the war? Perhaps this would lessen the effects of the this third party war time exploit. say 24 hours before it drags you to war with your ally, but you could still have the option to join sooner if you wanted to. This would give the tribe time to realize what is happening and prepare themselves or break the alliance with the exploiters before they can use a third party to raid them, this would tighten the window that exploiters would have to attack the targeted tribe by baiting them into an alliance and pulling them into an unexpected war. I mean if OP had 24 hours where a message would appear saying impeding war on side of ally in: x amount of time, He probably would have been able to realize he was being scammed and broken the alliance before he got dragged into this mess.
  11. This is absolute BS. How the hell do you justify this to yourself? It must be all or nothing... what balony, An option to allow you to accept or decline joining a war on the side of an ally is totally applicable and the best solution in my and others opinions, It will then be up to you to decide which allies will have your back and which won't, you know kind of like how it works in many many other games and in real life also??????? Instead you prefer a system where one is forced into a conflict that you may not even know anything about because "allies should have each others backs" that is so backwards. It should be a choice not an involuntary mechanic. You realize that this is the sole reason that other players can take advantage of the mechanic right? if tribe leaders had the choice to accept or decline going to war this would completely remove this problem from PVE which is why I am baffled at how people are against this. Yes some allies may be unreliable and not join you in war guess what you can do in those situations??? break the alliance with them, this would be a good way to test who really has your back anyway would it not? I mean some guy who is forced into making enemies with the people you make enemies with and has no say in whether to side with you or not, just seems backwards and dumb to me, and totally removed from logic and reality. So easy simple fix, let tribe leaders choose to join a war on the side of their ally or to decline. Heck you can even have it that if they choose to decline then it instantly breaks the alliance, for all of you who are hellbent on having your allies be strong armed into your conflicts. Then it will be a case of join the war or stop being our ally. I find anyone who is defending the fact that your allies have no choice with the wars YOU SELFISHLY can drag them into are not of sound logic and mind. As for people getting screwed over by these situations, sure Wildcard can fix the issue and I agree that they should probably adjust the system for PvE with a simple accept or decline feature as described above, but for the time being it isn't like that, so similar to the gas bag phenomenon take freaking precautions. If a company selling carrots has toxic chemicals in them, and they havent removed them yet are you going to keep eating their products anyway and then blame the company when you get sick even when you are aware there are chemicals in it that can harm you? (remove the whole mindset of "well you can sue them that way", for arguments sake and as it wouldnt apply to this situation) No you stop eating the dam carrots until they have fixed the issue. Take extra precaution until such a time that the issue is addressed. and if it is never addressed then make those precautions permanent.
  12. HoboNation

    Why?

    I think the people assuming that the OP has a technical issue I think you are missing his point. It is no secret that ark is not an optimized game, I mean the game is 160 something gigs, that alone is an indication of the lack of optimization. Disconnects glitches, missing characters, items disappearing from inventories, the list goes on. Sure you can improve client side performance by tweaking settings but no amount of tweaking or upgrades will help with server side issues or in game glitches and inefficiencies, I think it is the latter that OP is more talking about.
  13. Nah he just needs to stop skipping leg day, and lower torso day, infact maybe he needs to skip all days for a few months and then start again. As for OP's actual question if you need grappling hooks to get there, chances are it is considered a meshing spot and I would not allow people to build there.
  14. I think this is a problem with the new Valguero map. I have had this happen to me aswell, it seems to stem from when it transitions to night time and the back to day time the gamma goes all wacky. Restarting the game seems to solve the problem, but it is really annoying have to do that, and it isn't a permanent fix, it often will do it again at some point. EDIT: so no it isn't your GPU or your pc it is an Ark problem on their end, not sure if they are even aware of the issue yet. But I can confirm this exact thing has started happening to me when the new map released and a friend of mine. We all have different GPU's and specs so I very much doubt it's related to that.
  15. This was your first mistake. EDIT: Dont worry it was just a joke.
×
×
  • Create New...