Titus

I hope those shoes don't DC like the game does.

lol did they learn nothing from the game defiance? Good luck.

I'm going to spend my last day on Ark shooting otters in the face.

I thought WC was going to wait post launch to evaluate and wipe servers. I guess they are ahead of schedule on this one.

To be fair It still says the 8th in the menus on xbox.  Maybe Kiyo expected a little truth in advertising.  

An otter? Another fishing dino well not really a dino because I can go to the lake and see one. Fishing with poles is going to be more fun now with the nerfed rods dive bombing thief birds otters and baryonyx about. Seems like more take than give.  

9 hours ago, wildbill said:

I think what you are doing is creating a Logical Fallacy. Your premise is that flyers were nerfed because of low memory and bleeds. Now that those are fixed, we can remove the flyer nerf. But your premise is false, so the conclusion that we can remove the flyer nerf is false too. I like most, would like the flyers back they way they were. I just play on unofficial servers with mods to do that. I doubt any argument you raise here is going to un-nerf the flyers for official servers.

Now if you just want to waste everyone's time hashing something out again that has already been beaten to death shortly after the flyer nerf occurred, then I guess it will be up to the moderator to put a quick end to that (although they haven't so far).

Well since there is no classic flyer mod for for xbox or playstation its worth revisiting considering the size of ragnorak if players or devs have taken into consideration how much of their game time is going to be spent traveling. Has anyone logged travel times for the different flyers across ragnorak yet? Maybe someone has some time to waste on time trials?

47 minutes ago, GP said:

Well they did rebuff the flyers with v2 of the flyer nerf. They never promised that there would be another flyer buff. Sure they may come back to flyers and give it thought again, but as far as flyers are concerned what we have now is what people should expect for launch.

The flyers were nerfed due to memory bleeds? You sure about that? The servers being recoded and optimized have nothing to do with flyers.

I was told that they had to slow the dinos down to combat dash boarding and that the dash boarding was caused by low memory and bleeds. So maybe we cant get a strait answer on this? I will find the Dev quote for you on the flyer nerf rebuff.

As for commonsense Ark said the new servers are being re coded  and optimized first and legacy would be upgraded down the road so it would commonsense that there would be a rebuff on the new servers first because they should handle the increased speed of flyers because the memory bleeds would be fixed.

8 minutes ago, GP said:

Nothing I say is ever official. But lets have some commonsense here. Why would they revert flyer nerf for the new servers? If they were going to revert it then they'd have reverted it by now for all official servers.

Ark said when they implemented the flyer nerf they would evaluate the nerf and and rebuff and balance in the future. It is the future and its a perfect time to re balance and try to get players back that quit because of the nerf. This  is a fair inquiry.

Is that an official statement?

Is there going to be flier nerf on the new severs? That is the million dollar question.

4 hours ago, Zed38 said:

THIS IS NOT A BUG REPORT. THIS IS A DISCUSSION THREAD.

REFERENCE OP:

ARK LEGACY: Prediction of he Slow Death of Servers.

This DISCUSSION thread is a collection of my predictions for the recently posted decisions post-launch for Ark and the Legacy Server decisions. I will outline what I believe the short and long term effects will be for veteran players of Ark here. Quotes from the OP will be colored Red for clarity. Post your thoughts in a reply here.

We’ve got important and exciting news to share! First of all, we’ve finally completed our game for the console disc retail submission! It was a very long and arduous process, our boss fight or so to say, and your feedback throughout this process has been highly valuable. It was a very tight deadline to make the ship date, and the team has been intensively grinding through singleplayer-oriented refinements for the posterity of the disc-based version. All that aside, we were able to resolve many issues, as well as considerably improve the game through various changes and implementation of new techniques and it’s now time to move onto refocus our development efforts on the live game, as well as address some key topics within the community:

Having development work on the disc version is expected, but the game will still go through many, many patches over it's lifetime. There is no possibility that the disc will ship free of bugs and such. Console players will (like PC players do now), experience the same issues that have plagued the game. I forsee console players complaining about running out of hard disk space in short order, even if Ark is the only game installed. Essentially this means that since the game is being released on 3 different platforms, the teams will be split amongst these 3 platforms - ie: I predict there will be little to no change over the long term in terms of focus. Short term, there may be some focus work for specific platforms every so often as major problems crop up. Having a game released for 3 different platforms, and the apparent focus on development decisions to cater more towards console players in terms of QoL and ease of play, controls, other means that it is quite likely PC will (as with many multi-platform games) continue to receive the least amount of resources, while taking the brunt of first-patch pay-to-test (PC will get patches first, bug reports will be collected, then some fixes pushed out, after which the consoles will receive the partially fixed version). Since patch submission for consoles is more strict than PC this is understandable. I would imagine console sales will dominate PC sales as well, so financially this is also understandable.

Will the Official Servers be wiping?
Short answer: No -- but read the long answer! 
We had previously released a statement a year ago informing players that our Official Servers would not be wiping on the retail launch of the game. We’ve thought long and hard about the decision, taking into consideration the various points brought up by the community, the internal members of the team, as well as the general discussion that has taken place on the internet through various press/media outlets and will be sticking to our initial decision. It is clear that some group of players are for the wipe for, and some are against it, all for legitimate reasons; and we took it all into account.

We ultimately decided that we would not wipe and we would rather pay the cost to launch an additional new PvP and PvE Server Cluster network (alongside but separate from the current PvP and PvE Legacy Cluster), where players will get to have a fresh experience on the ARK; across all four maps with no influence from any of the previous servers. At that time we'll be rolling out the new server code and infrastructure necessary to prevent critical issues such as server crashing exploits, duping, and DDoSing, so they will not affect the batch of new servers (as well as the legacy ones, going forward).

Thank you for including in brackets that Legacy servers will also get updates. Notice the wording here "going forward". What I predict happening here is the reason why I chose the title of "slow death" for this post. Since the game price has jumped substantially, WCS only real option was to do exactly this - release a brand new cluster that is cut off from the Legacy servers. As everyone knows, a fresh uncluttered server will perform significantly better than those dirty old grungy legacy servers. WCS wants to maintain as good a performance level for the initial sales rush as possible. This will prevent most product refunds, and give newer players an equal footing to start out on. Don't mistake this for it being anything different than current servers however - within a few days you will have experienced players claiming the "best spots" on the new servers. By that time however the new people will have likely passed the refund window. Such is gaming these days. 

There is an extremely worrying wording in the above paragraph: "new... infrastructure... with no influence from any of the previous servers". To understand why this is a critical point of contention you first need to understand how cluster virtual machines (VMs) work for multi-server hosting. In a typical datacenter you will have groups of VMs running distributed across multiple physical machines. For example, PVE1 to 10 will be running on a cluster of VMs that is operating in Dallas, while PVEoc10-15 will be running in Sydney as an example. Inside these VMs are resources assigned to it based on the amount that WCS has agreed to pay for. This is called Provisioning. There may also be an optional Over-Provisioning for extra resources during peak times, or when some major event occurs (large war, or something). This provisioning covers connectivity bandwidth, cpu, memory, storage and a host of other optionals that may or may not be paid for. When WCS says that the new servers will be completely separate from the Legacy servers it could very well be that the VMs that run the new servers may exist on the same physical machines within the data centers, but that are separate and opaque to the legacy servers (essentially they cannot see eachother or interact in any way). Data center VM level infrastructure (often called Distributed Compute) is designed this way to allow multiple clients (Wildcard, others) to run their desired servers in tandem, while all sharing from a huge resource pool and Pay-For-Performance service model by the hosting providers (eg: Amazon Web Service, owner of the data center physical machines). Now that i've explained somewhat about this, I can now explain what my predictions are for "slow death of Legacy".

Server performance is based on how much money WCS chooses to pay for whichever cluster in question needs. If WCS wanted to make official servers perform better, they simply would have to pay more money for the resources (to a point, game code also has a large influence in this). Quite often you will see OfficialServerX with 30 people online and a generally equivilant development and age to OfficialServerC with the same people online have vastly different performance levels. If you look closely, you can see where the server is actually being hosted. Odds are that the 2 servers are not located in the same area geographically, or perhaps simply not part of the same group of VMs (cluster) so they do not share the same level of resource pool. WCS, by their statement above appears to be giving more priority for the non-legacy servers. This makes sense financially, because paying for resources to upkeep those dingy Legacy servers is far more expensive than fresh shiny new serers that are still in Thatch Age. VM resources can be adjusted on the fly without restart, and it is transparent to those playing the game. What I predict happening here is that over a length of time, the Legacy servers will continue to be "resource pool starved", causing the performance to drop ever so slightly over time (the same way human food and water consumption is stealth nerfed by minute ammounts over months right now in Ark). This will cause players to leave the servers slowly over time, and leads to the next paragraph below...

Our current set of Official Servers will be rebranded as “Legacy” and indicated as such on all platforms. We will also be taking steps to remove some of our ‘ghost town’ servers, where the player population has remained near-zero for an extended duration of time. We’ll take a look at the statistics and will be repurposing 10% of the lowest count servers across all platforms. Once we know which servers these are; we'll preserve the save files and upload them, so if you so wish to use them, you can. Players will also have time to move through Cross-ARK to a different secure Legacy server. Every three months we will be taking a review of the Legacy Officials to see what the numbers are like and may consider repurposing more ‘ghost towns’, however, the goal will be to preserve any place with human activity.

By starving the costly old dirty legacy servers, they push more and more of them towards the arbitrary "10%" mark. As the servers reach this mark, they will decomission them. Some of the old players will move to other servers, many will not and simply stop playing ark. In either case, it is financially prudent to do this. Older players already paid for the game, and are significantly needier in terms of support tickets as well as cost of VM resources to operate their server's mega-lag-bases. I don't fault this, its really the only way they can proceed. Supported further by the comment about revisiting and culling the botton 10%ers every 3 months or so.

What I predict here is that when new players join Ark for the first time, you can be assured that the servers listed nearer the top of their server listing will absolutely be the Non-Legacy servers. In fact, it could be that the Legacy servers simply do not show up for new players at all, that they would have to keyword search for them to find them (if they can join them at all, who knows). Of course, WCS wants to promote their shiny new servers to the newbies. That's not the issue. The issue will be lack of fresh blood to keep Legacy servers populated. What new player - given the choice between a shiny new ferrari, and a crappy dirty pinto with keymarks spelling "Pillared lel" scratched all over it would in their right mind choose to join the "pinto" server? It doesnt take a stretch of logic to know the answer to this. Legacy will have their old time players. Those players will slowly stop playing. No new players will join the legacy servers. Legacy servers will regularily be purged due to low population.

This cycle will be repeated again in the future I assume, with the current Legacy servers being a long distant memory, and the new legacy servers being the servers that are opening up in August on retail launch.

The rest of the dev post is irrelevant to this DISCUSSION.

The TLDR Prediction is: Legacy servers will be purposely resource starved, to cause and causing player exodus and new players will join new servers, causing Legacy servers to be culled over time due to low population. Long term vets should be prepared with an exit strategy for when their Legacy server is designated for culling.
 

 

4 hours ago, Zed38 said:

THIS IS NOT A BUG REPORT. THIS IS A DISCUSSION THREAD.

REFERENCE OP:

ARK LEGACY: Prediction of he Slow Death of Servers.

This DISCUSSION thread is a collection of my predictions for the recently posted decisions post-launch for Ark and the Legacy Server decisions. I will outline what I believe the short and long term effects will be for veteran players of Ark here. Quotes from the OP will be colored Red for clarity. Post your thoughts in a reply here.

We’ve got important and exciting news to share! First of all, we’ve finally completed our game for the console disc retail submission! It was a very long and arduous process, our boss fight or so to say, and your feedback throughout this process has been highly valuable. It was a very tight deadline to make the ship date, and the team has been intensively grinding through singleplayer-oriented refinements for the posterity of the disc-based version. All that aside, we were able to resolve many issues, as well as considerably improve the game through various changes and implementation of new techniques and it’s now time to move onto refocus our development efforts on the live game, as well as address some key topics within the community:

Having development work on the disc version is expected, but the game will still go through many, many patches over it's lifetime. There is no possibility that the disc will ship free of bugs and such. Console players will (like PC players do now), experience the same issues that have plagued the game. I forsee console players complaining about running out of hard disk space in short order, even if Ark is the only game installed. Essentially this means that since the game is being released on 3 different platforms, the teams will be split amongst these 3 platforms - ie: I predict there will be little to no change over the long term in terms of focus. Short term, there may be some focus work for specific platforms every so often as major problems crop up. Having a game released for 3 different platforms, and the apparent focus on development decisions to cater more towards console players in terms of QoL and ease of play, controls, other means that it is quite likely PC will (as with many multi-platform games) continue to receive the least amount of resources, while taking the brunt of first-patch pay-to-test (PC will get patches first, bug reports will be collected, then some fixes pushed out, after which the consoles will receive the partially fixed version). Since patch submission for consoles is more strict than PC this is understandable. I would imagine console sales will dominate PC sales as well, so financially this is also understandable.

Will the Official Servers be wiping?
Short answer: No -- but read the long answer! 
We had previously released a statement a year ago informing players that our Official Servers would not be wiping on the retail launch of the game. We’ve thought long and hard about the decision, taking into consideration the various points brought up by the community, the internal members of the team, as well as the general discussion that has taken place on the internet through various press/media outlets and will be sticking to our initial decision. It is clear that some group of players are for the wipe for, and some are against it, all for legitimate reasons; and we took it all into account.

We ultimately decided that we would not wipe and we would rather pay the cost to launch an additional new PvP and PvE Server Cluster network (alongside but separate from the current PvP and PvE Legacy Cluster), where players will get to have a fresh experience on the ARK; across all four maps with no influence from any of the previous servers. At that time we'll be rolling out the new server code and infrastructure necessary to prevent critical issues such as server crashing exploits, duping, and DDoSing, so they will not affect the batch of new servers (as well as the legacy ones, going forward).

Thank you for including in brackets that Legacy servers will also get updates. Notice the wording here "going forward". What I predict happening here is the reason why I chose the title of "slow death" for this post. Since the game price has jumped substantially, WCS only real option was to do exactly this - release a brand new cluster that is cut off from the Legacy servers. As everyone knows, a fresh uncluttered server will perform significantly better than those dirty old grungy legacy servers. WCS wants to maintain as good a performance level for the initial sales rush as possible. This will prevent most product refunds, and give newer players an equal footing to start out on. Don't mistake this for it being anything different than current servers however - within a few days you will have experienced players claiming the "best spots" on the new servers. By that time however the new people will have likely passed the refund window. Such is gaming these days. 

There is an extremely worrying wording in the above paragraph: "new... infrastructure... with no influence from any of the previous servers". To understand why this is a critical point of contention you first need to understand how cluster virtual machines (VMs) work for multi-server hosting. In a typical datacenter you will have groups of VMs running distributed across multiple physical machines. For example, PVE1 to 10 will be running on a cluster of VMs that is operating in Dallas, while PVEoc10-15 will be running in Sydney as an example. Inside these VMs are resources assigned to it based on the amount that WCS has agreed to pay for. This is called Provisioning. There may also be an optional Over-Provisioning for extra resources during peak times, or when some major event occurs (large war, or something). This provisioning covers connectivity bandwidth, cpu, memory, storage and a host of other optionals that may or may not be paid for. When WCS says that the new servers will be completely separate from the Legacy servers it could very well be that the VMs that run the new servers may exist on the same physical machines within the data centers, but that are separate and opaque to the legacy servers (essentially they cannot see eachother or interact in any way). Data center VM level infrastructure (often called Distributed Compute) is designed this way to allow multiple clients (Wildcard, others) to run their desired servers in tandem, while all sharing from a huge resource pool and Pay-For-Performance service model by the hosting providers (eg: Amazon Web Service, owner of the data center physical machines). Now that i've explained somewhat about this, I can now explain what my predictions are for "slow death of Legacy".

Server performance is based on how much money WCS chooses to pay for whichever cluster in question needs. If WCS wanted to make official servers perform better, they simply would have to pay more money for the resources (to a point, game code also has a large influence in this). Quite often you will see OfficialServerX with 30 people online and a generally equivilant development and age to OfficialServerC with the same people online have vastly different performance levels. If you look closely, you can see where the server is actually being hosted. Odds are that the 2 servers are not located in the same area geographically, or perhaps simply not part of the same group of VMs (cluster) so they do not share the same level of resource pool. WCS, by their statement above appears to be giving more priority for the non-legacy servers. This makes sense financially, because paying for resources to upkeep those dingy Legacy servers is far more expensive than fresh shiny new serers that are still in Thatch Age. VM resources can be adjusted on the fly without restart, and it is transparent to those playing the game. What I predict happening here is that over a length of time, the Legacy servers will continue to be "resource pool starved", causing the performance to drop ever so slightly over time (the same way human food and water consumption is stealth nerfed by minute ammounts over months right now in Ark). This will cause players to leave the servers slowly over time, and leads to the next paragraph below...

Our current set of Official Servers will be rebranded as “Legacy” and indicated as such on all platforms. We will also be taking steps to remove some of our ‘ghost town’ servers, where the player population has remained near-zero for an extended duration of time. We’ll take a look at the statistics and will be repurposing 10% of the lowest count servers across all platforms. Once we know which servers these are; we'll preserve the save files and upload them, so if you so wish to use them, you can. Players will also have time to move through Cross-ARK to a different secure Legacy server. Every three months we will be taking a review of the Legacy Officials to see what the numbers are like and may consider repurposing more ‘ghost towns’, however, the goal will be to preserve any place with human activity.

By starving the costly old dirty legacy servers, they push more and more of them towards the arbitrary "10%" mark. As the servers reach this mark, they will decomission them. Some of the old players will move to other servers, many will not and simply stop playing ark. In either case, it is financially prudent to do this. Older players already paid for the game, and are significantly needier in terms of support tickets as well as cost of VM resources to operate their server's mega-lag-bases. I don't fault this, its really the only way they can proceed. Supported further by the comment about revisiting and culling the botton 10%ers every 3 months or so.

What I predict here is that when new players join Ark for the first time, you can be assured that the servers listed nearer the top of their server listing will absolutely be the Non-Legacy servers. In fact, it could be that the Legacy servers simply do not show up for new players at all, that they would have to keyword search for them to find them (if they can join them at all, who knows). Of course, WCS wants to promote their shiny new servers to the newbies. That's not the issue. The issue will be lack of fresh blood to keep Legacy servers populated. What new player - given the choice between a shiny new ferrari, and a crappy dirty pinto with keymarks spelling "Pillared lel" scratched all over it would in their right mind choose to join the "pinto" server? It doesnt take a stretch of logic to know the answer to this. Legacy will have their old time players. Those players will slowly stop playing. No new players will join the legacy servers. Legacy servers will regularily be purged due to low population.

This cycle will be repeated again in the future I assume, with the current Legacy servers being a long distant memory, and the new legacy servers being the servers that are opening up in August on retail launch.

The rest of the dev post is irrelevant to this DISCUSSION.

The TLDR Prediction is: Legacy servers will be purposely resource starved, to cause and causing player exodus and new players will join new servers, causing Legacy servers to be culled over time due to low population. Long term vets should be prepared with an exit strategy for when their Legacy server is designated for culling.
 

 

I have been telling people that all day nobody wants to hear that or believe it. First like minded post I read all day.

13 minutes ago, Arkasaurio said:

I was just expanding upon the band aid idea, it's a poor analogy altogether. Regardless, what was the better option, leave the servers as they are now, just let new players join? Open up transfers? Whether it's what you'd do, I think it's pretty obvious that leads to pillared everything in about the first day. Or did you want the wipe? I'm not saying it's the best option for you, and you're entitled to your opinion, but look at this thread, take into account the whole of everyone posting here. Do you really think more people would be happy with wipe or with open transfers?

If it were just me, I'd say wipe it all, don't divide the player base, etc. but I give big kudos to WC because I think this is the option that's best for the most players and that allows them to keep their initial word while giving new players a fresh start.

Where do the devs say legacy are inferior? Beyond that, here are some reasons maybe it's not as big of a problem as you think.

1. Newbies are going to get confused in the "super clear" game list UI and end up on legacy anyway.

2. People who've been waiting for release to buy will play with their legacy friends.

3. If salty vets move to the new servers just to grief new players, legacy might be more friendly.

4. Depending on launch success and whether people really do flock to new servers, legacy might be the only place with room.

5. People like you can continue to build your community on the legacy side. Recruit people to your sever, convince your friends to stay, do your part to make the legacy side be the place people want to be.

However, if by your own omission the legacy servers are so inferior, why should they even exist in the first place? I'm not saying they are, but frankly I don't think any game mode that doesn't have the player base to support it should be officially supported.

And I'll admit, that if there's a big a warning on release saying new players absolutely shouldn't play legacy because it's full of duping cheaters, then okay, this is a big slap in the face.

you have made some good points. We will have to wait and see. As long as there is no extra perks or benefits between the new and old server ill be ok with the fate of legacy. But if they pull a bunch of events on the new and not the old the devs will pushing not shoving people over. If there is no flier nerf on the new servers my theories will be proven. Lets see how balanced they keep it

2 minutes ago, KiolLman said:

 

First, I'm not english speaker, so sorry if some part of that iI'll write is not clear.

 

I spent more than 6 month playing in PVE official server. In this moment i have many bred dinos, mutants, hight stats, and primarly this dinos are for trade. With this change, with the time, all will be trash because Legacy servers will not have new players with will can trade.

 

Basically, after this anouncement i decided that i just play for keep alive my dinos if something change, but, i dont have intentions of continue with breeding, taming, or whatever that can be destroy with the time cause I think this thing of legacy is just the agony of the old servers.

 

I hope they change that, PVE dont need a new cluster of servers like a PVP.

 

Sorry bad english, i dont like use google translate,..

 

NA PVE 795 Scorched Earth 

 

 

 

 

for someone that doesn't speak English you articulated your point clearly. Well said.

52 minutes ago, Arkasaurio said:

More like a life saving tourniquet . This may not be your favorite solution but it's the best middle ground for the WHOLE Ark community. Any other option would have lead to lot more PO'ed people.

I also have no idea why you're so sure you're server is going to die off. Maybe it's not the go to choice on day one for people who don't know anyone currently playing Ark, but there's a lot of folks who don't buy EA that are going to go play with their friends (who do buy EA) on legacy servers. Also, over time the difference should become a lot less pronounced, as legacy servers are getting all the updated code, eventually most of duped/glitched/etc. advantages will fade out. I really think a strong community move would be wiping very low population servers every quarter, no matter the game mode or cluster (not unofficial of course). Might encourage people to make their servers decent places to play.

Or maybe you're right and overtime the whole player base moves to the new servers and legacy completely dies. All that means is there aren't enough people interested in playing there. If that vast of the majority of the player base doesn't care to play legacy it probably shouldn't even exist, but at least WC is letting the community vote with their feet (play time) rather than just wiping (or giving no new servers).

52 minutes ago, Arkasaurio said:

More like a life saving tourniquet . This may not be your favorite solution but it's the best middle ground for the WHOLE Ark community. Any other option would have lead to lot more PO'ed people.

I also have no idea why you're so sure you're server is going to die off. Maybe it's not the go to choice on day one for people who don't know anyone currently playing Ark, but there's a lot of folks who don't buy EA that are going to go play with their friends (who do buy EA) on legacy servers. Also, over time the difference should become a lot less pronounced, as legacy servers are getting all the updated code, eventually most of duped/glitched/etc. advantages will fade out. I really think a strong community move would be wiping very low population servers every quarter, no matter the game mode or cluster (not unofficial of course). Might encourage people to make their servers decent places to play.

Or maybe you're right and overtime the whole player base moves to the new servers and legacy completely dies. All that means is there aren't enough people interested in playing there. If that vast of the majority of the player base doesn't care to play legacy it probably shouldn't even exist, but at least WC is letting the community vote with their feet (play time) rather than just wiping (or giving no new servers).

life saving tourniquet? More like life support where the plug can get pulled anytime. Why do I think legacy will fail? Why would anybody buy the game to play by the devs own statements buy an inferior product. They said down the road they would recode the servers to fix problems. We have been down the road so much it's lost its substance

12 minutes ago, Joebl0w13 said:

My server used to be full at 70 on launch. Then dropped to 20 when The Center came out. Then back up to 50 then to 3 after SE came out. Now it's back at 45.

New/old people always come and go.

Ragnorok on legacy is going to spread the server population so thin that every server will be low population 

17 minutes ago, LameoveR said:

so what's the problem? Now we have depopulated servers and what?

Who needs to maintain depopulated server? 

Exactly my point legacy will bleed into extinction that is my whole point. I'm not complaining just want people to realize that this legacy thing is a band aid

8 minutes ago, wildbill said:

Low population servers have been wiped before, right? So really is there any change to the current situation?

There has always been the threat of a wipe on a low population server. Now you just know that it will be the bottom 10%. Just a bit more specific. Just don't be the bottom 10% and you are fine.

We had 30 plus average until the flier nerf then it went to about 20 average two weeks of no double xp weekends went to around 10 average. Ive got about 500k ingots into my compound its not moving.  Server population has been directly caused by the devs now its on me to keep the server going? Devs have been taking  away more than they have been giving for awhile legit day oners have been leaving in droves without the promise of the grass being greener on the other side. Once people leave they are not coming back that goes for all servers. Unless you want to start a server welfare program people are going to bail. Legacy is propaganda  

2 minutes ago, dslick said:

They have officially stated that legacy servers will continue to be supported though. 

untill server population drops. Servers will be evaluated every 90 days for wipe or re purpose. Do you want to play under that situation?

The more I think about the angrier I get. Stringing the players that helped make the game along on these legacy servers is just wrong. Just admit it this legacy thing is just a PR maneuver to curve negative feedback for your game release. Your not investing in a separate server platform your buying time. It will be a huge slap in the early access players face when you start ditching legacy servers. Players are a lot more forgiving when they are told the truth and not get strung along.

3 minutes ago, ZRISTWI10 said:

Laughable that PVE doesn't get a new cluster. I do not play or like PVE whatsoever, but it's a travesty that anyone who does has no choice but to continue playing with dupers. LOLOLOL enjoy that!

Its laughable that you didn't read that PvE is getting a new cluster.

1 minute ago, mleii said:

Jat drew up this AMAZING diagram for us.
 

 

It says from the old legacy servers. That confirms where I think their hearts are at on current ark servers.

Just now, Joebl0w13 said:

Any and all servers are always at risk of becoming low pop and getting wiped. 

New and old, there has always been a risk of people abandoning a server. Nothing has changed.

Except that the game is being release. And with it a batch of better running servers. Other than that exactly the same.

2 minutes ago, Joebl0w13 said:

So do all that just to be in the same place (still behind actually) where the established traders are?

Listen friend would you rather invest your game time on a map with an unknown expiration date or use your game time to play with some security and confidence in the future of your server? I don't know about you but from here out I feel like an hr played on "legacy" will be an hr wasted starting over on the new servers. To me if I do continue to play its a clear cut choice to jump ship and I am a tek tier pve and pvp player. I don't like it but I'm looking with some vision and being realistic with my gaming time