TimeBomb2003

Theoretically, how hard would It be to make a mod (or have a mod made) that separates the sounds that creatures and humans make, from the "Ambient Volume" audio slider in game? I'd like to be able to hear the wind and birds in the background without having my eardrums blown out by my ceratosaurus.

Aside from the absolutely invincible graphics, it basically plays the same as the original game, just with a few quality of life updates here and there. For me it runs pretty good, haven't had a crash in a long while, which is much better than when it first came out, where it crashed all the time.

Cronch this, sucka.

cool

Can someone who knows how to mod, make a mod to fix the sarco's broken attack? I imagine it couldn't be that hard to do. I'll give you a dollar if you do it.

(Disclaimer; I won't actually give you a dollar. But I will give you my gratitude, of which their will be a lot.)

In ASA, my character has stopped making any sound. The audio returns if I die/respawn, but disappears again when I relog. Is there a way to fix this so that I don't have to kill myself constantly? My character has the 2nd voice if that matters.

When I started playing ark properly by beating all the story maps in order, it was around the time when Extinction was getting announced. So I was able to play The Island through Genesis without having to wait for the next DLC to drop.

But now that I'm having to wait for Ark Ascended to release, let me tell ya, I now know the pain of having to wait for the next piece of content.

On 4/8/2023 at 1:59 AM, dgkforlife said:

pve is a joke. try fighting and defending and actually EARNING your way then having it all taken.

When should the servers shut down?

5 hours ago, AllOfTheAllos said:

Because it's years of our effort. Our successes, failures, memories attached to them. Year of connections, too - sure, I never interacted much with other players, but even I have a few near whose bases I'm happy to fly and see they're still standing, meaning their owners are still there.

In your opinion, when should they shut the servers down? Because its illogical to assume that they would keep them up forever. For me, I think they should keep them up until Ark 2 comes out. That way the players could have a more comfortable transition from Evolved to Ascended, and then Ascended and Ark 2 would run in tandem. However, no matter if they extend it or not, there's no way to escape the fact that the servers will shut down.

4 hours ago, hbomb1972 said:

Are we getting any of the new content on Xbox then too? And Charcharadon?

...tosaurus.

23 hours ago, TyranntX said:

 

You know looking at it twice, it looks more like a Giga COSTUME than it does a creature. Bad enough this thing was a giga re-make (and an unneeded one) now it's a look alike too. 

Still upset that this thing was added ey?

19 hours ago, Alysson said:

Lol. You all will play Ark 2, no matter what.

I will play Ark 2. Weather I pirate it or not is a question for the future.

53 minutes ago, Luizza said:

But as soon as they're born they can be separated from their parents and stuck in a prison camp if they dare to cross an arbitary man made border.

The hypocrisy of you people is astounding.

Well done WC for taking a stand.

If you break into our country, you pay the price.

1 hour ago, pushforth said:

I've also had to unsubscribe from Syntac. He came out swinging for Wildcard on Twitter, telling people who question Wildcard's decision to "shut your mouth" and "get back to your corner"... The guy is in Ireland talking crap about America and Americans regarding an American issue he clearly knows nothing about.

And in the end, the actions of these foolish actors will have changed nobody's mind.

Could you post a link to this tweet/post of his? I'd like to see this for myself.

Edit: Nevermind, I found it.

53 minutes ago, CosmicSkeleton said:

Don't be obtuse. Prohibition in that context was the term for the banning of alcohol back in the 20s.

[prohibition]

"The action of forbidding something, especially by law."

(Blank space)

In terms of alcohol, I'm not too versed in that subject, but my understanding is that the idea is that alcohol, between the years of 1920 and 1933, was completely banned in terms of creation, sale, and consumption. If that is truly what the act of prohibition is, banning something completely, then yes, applying that same action to abortion, would seem like a good idea. What is obtuse however, is the idea of comparing consumption of a not so dangerous drug to the action of ending a child.

One of my issues with the left is the way they brand themselves. For example, in the case of abortion, they classify it as "women's health", so that way, if someone tries to argue the point, they can just reply with:

13 minutes ago, JRabbit said:

Then don't Clearly your fight against someone who supports women's health care shows just how backwards you really are.

All of a sudden, if you're not fully left-wing, you become the most evil person on the face of the earth.

And to think, I thought their whole schtick was tolerance and acceptance. But clearly that only applies if you agree with them.

10 minutes ago, Sparky16 said:

Honestly, it shouldn't be a law in the first place. This is plan old personal health care.

...That results in someone getting killed.

9 hours ago, Luizza said:

I actually came back this morning to edit my comments last night as I thought that was a little strong, Ark means a lot of different things to different people and generalising like that is rarely helpful.

So, yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion and if it is different to mine, or different to what I hear a lot of people in game saying, that still doesn't mean it applies to everyone. I play official PVE because I like the social interaction, that's a huge part of why I return again and again. I can see however that if you play singleplayer (which I beleive the majority do) then combat could seem stale. Still doesn't change my opinion that 3rd person and the innovations seem a step too far away from what gave Ark it's charm... for me.

That's fair

5 hours ago, Luizza said:

But it's not tho is it? It's tame a variety of creatures for a variety of tasks. Vast majority play PVE / singleplayer 'cos of the huge amount of different things to do

I agree. The different creatures are designed to fill different roles. Some harvest different resources, some passively produce certain resources, some you have to kill for certain resources, some shoulder creatures give you passive/active abilities, and so on, and so forth.

But when it comes down to the combat, it is just left click again and again. If you're on a rex, fighting another rex, or something similar, there is hardly any strategy, it just comes down to which one is stronger.

5 hours ago, Luizza said:

... 3rd person, parkour and combat 'innovations'? No thanks, there's a dino for all of those 'new' abilities they talk of already, and if there isn't that's what they should be thinking of.

I highly doubt the new system is only for players/humans. They're probably going to add all the parkour and movement stuff to the creatures as well.

5 hours ago, Luizza said:

Basically if you like the sound of Ark 2, you're prob not an Ark player or just dabbled in it from time to time.

I don't really like to use this in an argument, but you left me no choice. With around 4k hours in Ark singleplayer, I think I've graduated from just dabbling in it from time to time.

12 hours ago, EnRoute2FYB said:

And these people who are trying to say a game sequel means the core of the game should change are clearly not very familiar with the gaming industry. Literally 90%+ of games that release a sequel don’t change the core of the game - they add a new story, characters, graphics, weapons, features, fixes etc. That’s literally the standard (Halo, COD, Diablo, Fifa, Kingdom of Hearts, I could literally go on forever). So please stop trying to act like a game sequel is meant to radically change the core of a game like flipping from First Person to Third Person. That’s an entirely new game, not a sequel.

A lot of those franchises that you mentioned have a ton of games under their belt. Which means that they release sequels more often, and as such, can get away with not really changing anything between the new titles. For them, there wouldn't be any point in putting in a bunch of effort in making each game really unique or giving it tons of updates if a new game is just going to replace it in a year.

Ark however, has been out for 7 years, and presumably, the sequel is going to be out for roughly the same amount of time. No matter how different the story, or how much better the graphics are, if the gameplay is the same, people are going to get tired of it. If you're planning on having the sequel be out for another 7 years, I'd say change as much of it as you can.

And no, switching to 3rd person isn't a radical change to the core of the game. Radically changing the core of the game would be taking away the creature taming, or having it no longer be a survival game.

12 hours ago, EnRoute2FYB said:

That’s literally the standard (Halo, COD, Diablo, Fifa, Kingdom of Hearts, I could literally go on forever).

Also, just to be clear, that's not figuratively the standard, and you couldn't figuratively go on forever, right?

22 hours ago, Nemesis4200 said:

No thank you, no darksouls wannabe assassin's creed with dinos rip off for me thank you. The vast majority of the community is against this. Ark 2 will crash and burn. You will not see a penny from me, i wouldn't even play it if it was free. 🖕🖕 thanks vin diesel... you skid

You'd rather have the current system of left click over and over again?

6 hours ago, EnRoute2FYB said:

The point of a sequel isn’t to radically change the core of the game. MORE of what we are used to is exactly what people want in the sequel. The point of a sequel is to add new things without changing the core of the game - look at almost any other game franchise. Lets use Halo as an example.

I'd say the point of a DLC is to add new things without changing the core of the game. If you're going to warrant a whole new game, one the size of Ark, you had better have a good reason for doing so.

6 hours ago, EnRoute2FYB said:

For the most part, Ark players just wanted things like bug fixes, better graphics, new maps, improved dinosaur AI, new tools, new threats, new crafting, new dinosaurs etc. The game would not be a “copy paste”, but the game would feel the same with some new additions. As an example - in Halo infinite they added the grapple mechanic. It also features new enemies / weapons / better graphics. I guarantee you if Halo infinite decided to suddenly go Third Person Only you would see their players become absolutely hysterical. 

At the end of the day, no matter how many new combat systems they add, or how advanced the dinosaur AI gets, or whatever perspective it'll use, it's still going to be primarily a survival game. A hard, brutal, PvP survival game, with taming and riding dinosaurs as one of its main features. Made by the same people as the first. Which means that no matter what, it will feel familiar one way or another.

However, if you made an FPS (First Person Shooter) into a Third Person game/shooter, then yes, some people would most likely have a problem with that.

And I'll be honest, I wasn't too keen on the 3rd person only thing at first either. Just because of how much I dislike the 3rd person view in Ark 1. But I realized that they wouldn't make a change like that for no reason whatsoever. If they're going the 3rd person only route, they'll focus on streamlining that way of playing, and taking advantage of whatever things that specific view allows for, that 1st person would not.

5 hours ago, BlackScarlatta said:

I mostly the time in community crunch read a lot of people sending "good vibes" and doesnt taking care about evrything in the game. And now... now i read people that isnt not so much in love with Ark 2, i read them mostly hopeless... imagine... WildCard gives them Ark 1... Early Acces... till now and yet still have a lot of patch that mostly of times are broken other stuff... like patching with bubblegum or duct tape. Then WildCArd (or part of the studio) gave us ATLAS, same game as Ark 1 but with other theme and others mods for "changing view". Some people doesnt care about when Ark 2 will be released to the point that only care that the game actually would be better than Ark 1 and Best than ATLAS.

 

________ Also, they llove people that gave them modding stuff so they can actually add it as their own... very clever, use the time and effort from others, moddify something to say "Hey, its our map now", and dont doing your job... been devs. ________

 

Im actually enjoing every community crunch that you give us where you actually showing us that you doenst give a thing for the real community that yuo say that you are "hearing"... The game started to change a lot its perspective since they started to add stuff and dinos that actully are from other games... and doesnt think better in anything new and tasty. (yeas, the last 3 words are from "Abe's Odysee").

 

I will be honest (like i was been always since i wrote here)... I will not buy the game... I will not consume that game... I'm Sorry for Vin Diesel that actually put his face and name in that game... but with all the mixture that THAT game will be, i will be very sorry for the buyers and also for the Actor... I love Vin Diesel... AS A FILM ACTOR. I hope im wrong and the game actually is good... But i will be mostly happy to stay in Ark 1 SINGLEPLAYER and not buying any other game from this studio... sorry guys... you had one job.

 

 

you will be missed

1 hour ago, Stevenreese1998 said:

If all that burnt up why is anyone alive. They were in those parts of the ship.

All the shuttles that the survivors landed on the planet in were designed for re-entry. The actual starship itself was not. That's why in real life spacecraft have heat shields, cause otherwise they would get destroyed in the atmosphere.

1 hour ago, Stevenreese1998 said:

Why would you completely change the game and still name it the same thing? We are comfortable with the view they have now, 3rd person will ruin gun play, if their is even guns in game. We can already climb mountains and all kinds of stuff like flying.

I can't think of any other survival games off the top of my head that have taming and riding dinosaurs as the main feature, or any other games that take place in the same universe as Ark. Or any other games that take place after Ark 1. Therefor: Ark 2. What would be the point in making a new game if they didn't mix anything up? If you don't want to deal with anything being different from Ark 1, you should probably stick with Ark 1.

1 hour ago, Stevenreese1998 said:

The only reason to do third person only is for melee combat, which would be useless if it anything like the first game with shotguns and grenade launchers.

Hmm, maybe because their reworking the melee combat system, there's going to be more of an emphasis on melee combat? Just a thought. And also, there's probably not going to be any firearms, it being primitive and all that.

1 hour ago, Stevenreese1998 said:

And if all technology is gone DILO happens to it. Gen 2 we had the epitome of technology but it's gonna go back to fighting with spears???? Why??? How do you loose an entire spaceship???

If you played Genesis 2, the ship went kablooie.