Pipinghot

I would submit a support ticket to WildCard, or Steam, or both.

That looks right to me also, your syntax is identical to what we use on my server, I copied this from my Game.ini file. NPCReplacements=(FromClassName="Titanosaur_Character_BP_C",ToClassName="") 1) Did you do a server shutdown and restart after adding that to your Game.ini file? 2) After doing a server restart, did you look in your Game.ini file just to confirm that the entries are still in the file and didn't get overwritten during the server startup? 3) After restarting the server, did you do a dino wipe as noted by zero064 above? Edit: I see your answer above. So when you did the DestroyWildDinos command did you watch some nearby dinos to make sure that you saw them disappear and start respawning? I know that sounds a little picky, but in my experience it's important to make sure that you see it happening. If you have done all three of those steps and it's still not working, then you might need to contact either NItrado or WC support.

Yes, I've done it. Now what is happening that you seem to be arguing about? Also, what platform are you playing on. I've done it on Steam, so maybe the results are different for other platforms.

/slowclap

That looks like a classic snap point issue, things like that have been possible all throughout ASE. All is takes is one piece attaching via the wrong snap point and then the entire wall or ceiling built off of that piece is one snap point off. Having said that, if you think this is something new then maybe jump on single-player and use the same methods to build another building like that one and see if you get the same results.

Just out of curiosity I took a look at Palia, and wow. It is so different from ARK that any comparison between the two is a moot point. While it's true they both have harvesting and building, Palia is a classic RPG, and a "cozy game" on top of that, while ARK is an open-world sandbox game with a hostile environment, there are many more differences than similarities. The home instances that they use in Palia would be terrible in ARK, as they completely remove home bases from interacting with the rest of the game. Bases in ARK are never, ever supposed to be a sanctuary that is separate from, and protected from, the rest of the game. Every base in ARK, whether PvP or PvE, is supposed to be part of the environment and interact with the environment (and other players). Base building in Palia is all about building your own personal, private space that's separate from the rest of the game. Base building in ARK is all about being part of the world your base inhabits. In ARK, there should never be a time when a base is isolated from, and immune to, the environment around it. That wouldn't be ARK any more.

You should just assume that every aspect of ASA will be delayed, it doesn't exist until a couple of days before they release it. I'm not saying that to be argumentative, your question is perfectly reasonable, it's just that you'll be more content and enjoy the game more if you just ignore the dates they publish. No matter what they say, don't believe it until you see it.

There absolutely will be cryopods, there's no question at all about whether WC will re-introduce cryopods later. If you're hoping cryopods never come back then start preparing yourself now for disappointment, it's going to happen. Just the opposite. Instead of making one big building they'll make multiple smaller buildings spread out over a larger area. Instead of pillar spam there will be building spam. People will just make each building have a specific purpose - kitchen building, breeding building, crafting bulding, etc. Now instead of one large buildings with a bunch of pillars there will be multiple buildings that will make it even harder to travel through the map than pillaring does. It's a whole lot easier to walk through a bunch of pillars than through a piece of land with multiple buildings on it. And the more buildings they have to build the less interested they'll be in aesthetics. The main building might be built to look nice, but the kitchen building will be a box, the breeding building will be a box, etc. If there's one thing this change will do, it will force people to 'brance out widely' in a way that they didn't in ASE. It won't, it will just change what you complain about. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you find yourself wishing for larger build limits.

Reducing the limit will make bases more ugly, not less. People will stop using extra pieces that make their buildings more aesthetic and will settle for building a basic box, because thet's the most efficient way to make a building. I'm not suggesting that you should prefer a larger build limit, you're certainly entitled to prefer a smaller limit if that's what you want, but there's no logic to arguing that a lower build limit will reduce ugly bases, it will only cause more of them.

All of those things should be based on the account, not the computer. If you use the same account on both computers then they'll all be synchronized.

Instances also add to server load, unless you offload them to additional servers. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it would require re-architecting the server software. Beyond that, I'd say put this into the Suggestions section and see if WildCard finds it interesting. You're name wouldn't happen to be Edmund Rockwell...

Short answer: Caves are hard, bring tames. Until you have advanced gear and weapons made from good blueprints, or a lot of experience, going into caves solo is mostly an exercise in frustration. It's important to remember that on a map with caves the basic sequence looks like this: Start>Level>Build>Tame>Build & Tame more>Maybe do some breeding>Start working caves. A single player can do the "easy" cave (which actually means "less difficult" cave) on The Island while riding a good saber cat with a good saddle, but it's much safer to take at least 2 or 3 sabers into the cave with you on follow. Tames are your major force multipliers in this game. Trying to do too much on foot is basically setting yourself up for frustration until you have experience and advanced gear. If you're still learning the game, focus on doing a lot of taming and getting practice with how each of the different animals can be the most useful to you.

It's not the people, it's the game design. The fact that ARK has fully destructive PvP is the root cause of this happening. If you were in a tribe that, with all of the players added up, spent thousands of hours building up, you wouldn't want to do it either. Having thousands of hours of work burned down in a day isn't really fun, no matter how much you think you like PvP. It's really easy to accuse of others of not liking PvP when you've only spend a few dozen hours building a base, but the more time a tribe invests in building up the less likely they are to want to put that at risk. The thing is, their answer is valid. "its pvp.." is true - in ARK. That might not be PvP in WoW, or a bunch of other games, but in ARK it is. It's not just ARK, in any game that has fully destructive PvP that's how the game works. It's the game design that causes this problem, this type of PvP almost requires you to be a bully if you want to stay on top, it's pretty much impossible to be "king of the hill" in ARK if you don't do these things. This is the same reason a lot of wars don't happen in the real world - countries (and tribes) don't go to war unless they are confident they have a really good chance of winning, that's what happens when the game is fully destructive. I've been on both sides of this line, and let me tell you when you see a new tribe on your server you immediately have to keep an eye on them. If they seem to be growing too quickly then you have no choice to knock them down a couple of steps, otherwise you're setting yourself up for failure if you let them grow too much. There are a couple of solutions to this: 1) Establish some kind of diplomatic relations with the powerful tribes so they don't crush you. That might, for example, mean that you agree to not tame certain creatures. Back when ARK was new the first time, before Scorched Earth had been released, the alpha tribe on our map allowed people to build out of stone but no metal, and people could tame anything other than a giga. When Scorched Earth came out that also included no wyverns. Later on, when I was in an alpha tribe, we basically did the same thing. Constant patrolling, set the server rules, and then beat down anyone who violates them and anyone who looks like they might present a threat. Just because someone has a wooden hut doesn't mean they're harmless, sometimes you have to break it open to see what they have inside that hut. It's pretty easy to build a double-layer building with wood on the outside and metal on the inner layer. That's a sure sign that someone is planning to become a threat, and the only way to find out is to bust down their building a couple of times. 2) Try to get to know them until eventually they invite you to join them. Sometimes this is done strictly through diplomacy, other times you do it by being persistent enough and putting up a good fight so they recognize that you're a good player. 3) Build a tribe of your own that's strong enough to invade a server and take it over. But whatever you do, complaining about it and telling people that they don't like PvP is never going to accomplish anything. Whatever people like or don't like, the game system in ARK PvP almost forces you to be a bully, because if you don't someone else is going to take you down when you let down your guard. That's the thing about ARK PvP, you either survive through diplomacy or force, or a combination of both, or you don't survive, that's just how it works. If you can't like that system them you're never going to like PvP in ARK.

Personally, I liked them a lot. But even then, they only worked (for me) because they were neither involved in PvP nor PvE, they were just sort of a "personal space" that didn't affect the game other than having friends help each other with some quests that weren't important and thus completely optional. WoW's implementation allowed people who wanted to fully explore a home instance to do so without forcing people to work on them if they didn't want to. But of course YMMV, sounds like you were one of the latter group.

Home instances have not been tried, but they have been discussed, and dismissed as a good solution for this game. Solutions that work well in other games will not necessarily work well in ARK, and using home instances is one of those not-good-for-ARK solutions. Home instances are great... in some games, but they would look and feel pretty wonky and out of place with ARK. Open-world-sandbox-built-whatever-you-want isn't the kind of game that lends itself to home instances, they don't go great together.

Wow, that is a really creepy name.

True, we agree that can be done, but as far as I know it's not actually going to be done with ARK. It all comes down to whether this is something WC wants to support, and I haven't read anything that indicates they plan on doing this. Based on what I've seen and read I believe that they're going to keep accounts/platforms/characters separate from each other. Mind you, I'd rather be wrong about this than right about it, would love to see them do it. If anyone has quoted from Discord, X(Twitter) or anywhere else from WC saying they have plans to do this, it would be great to find that out.

That's a pretty good answer, thanks. I'll address this at the end. Now that you've described it, that's some reasonably solid reasoning. I mean, we still have to assume that WC has a reason for the order they chose the platforms for release, but your logic behind the idea that PS will be a majority audience is easy to understand. Mind you, that doesn't mean it will be the majority audience at the the time of release, but it is a pretty good explanation for why, over time, the audience for ARK will be larger on PS than in XBox. So in case you think your reasoning is falling on deaf ears, it's not, I get it. In return I'd ask you to consider that your reasoning for the long term audience may or may not have any applicability to the size of the audience at the time of release. Beyond this, there might be reasons beyond the question of audience size that would lead WC to chose XBox first. My suspicion (and it's only a suspicion because I don't have personal experience with releasing a game on any of these platforms) is that it's because XBox is a platform that's closer to Steam than PS is on the back end or there is some issue between WC and Sony/PS that needs to be resolved and WC doesn't want to stop their rollout while they wait for that issue to be resolved. Even if the PS would have a larger audience on the day of release it's an over simplification to think that this simple numerical comparison is enough to prioritize one platform over the other. And, by the way, none of this is intended to tell you that you shouldn't be frustrated or impatient. I get that part, we're all human and you want the game to come to your chosen platform sooner than later. No one can argue with that feeling. Agreed. If you had removed the second paragraph from your OP, "Roughly 65% of the...", then you probably would not have gotten any push back on your posts. The actual questions were all pretty normal and I'm sure tons of PS players have the same questions. Agreed, but unfortunately that's what happens when people use unsupported statistics as one of the premises of their argument. It's perfectly legit to question someone's argument if they base that argument on bad ideas or bad numbers. It's obvious you weren't trying to be disingenuous, but you have to remember that 83.8429% of statistics are just made up by people because they think it makes their argument look better. While Joe's first response to you was perhaps overly blunt, he made a very valid point that you were using an unsupported statistic, and that there are good reasons why that unsupported statistic might be wrong. You responded to that by saying, "Let me dumb it down..." which had two flaws: 1) it didn't improve the tone of the conversation and 2) it demonstrated that you missed the point of Joe's response. It's an old, old truth of debate that if you're going to be snarky you'd better be sure that you're right before you do it. In this case you escalated the snark and missed the point. So, in the interest of trying to improve the tone of the conversation - your complaints and questions were perfectly legitimate, regardless of any discussions about statistics. Hopefully WC will provide the answers that you and other PS owners are looking for. Fingers crossed for you.

You're making an assumption with no evidence. Even if it's true that "Roughly 65% of the next gen consoles are PS5 players based on sold consoles" that does not automatically mean that 65% of the console owners who play are are using a PS to play it. For all you know ARK is much more popular with XBox owners than with PS owners, it might be the case that the majority of ARK console players are using XBox to play the game. Unlike you, WildCard actually knows how many of their console players are using PS to play and how many are using XBox to play, so maybe they chose XBox first because they know that historically they have more XBox players than PS players. Or maybe not, I don't know, and neither do you. The difference is you're making an assumption about ARK's console players even though you don't have evidence to support your assumption. This is the point Joe was making that went over your head.

Whew! Glad to hear it, that makes a lot more sense.

Why in the world would you use BE gates for a doed? They can be tamed in a 1x2 pen.

It has never worked for me since the beginning of ASE (tried it on official, my private unofficial, someone else's unofficial, single-player) unless there is some trick that I've never heard about, it has never worked.

Same character: No. Steam and Xbox are two different companies, two different products, two different licenses, two different copies of the game. You character on XBox will be tied to your XBox account and therefore will not be playable on Steam, and vice versa. Allowing more than one platform per server does not mean allowing a character to be shared between different platforms. Same tribe: Yes (probably), but you would be using two different characters in the tribe, one from XBox and one from Steam.

Yeah, and that's what the OP was asking about. When you said, "Its not even out yet lol", you comment was out of place because the OP was asking about the servers for PC that are showing 0/26 players.

As far as I know, they do not. I believe the cross play servers will be new servers that they bring up when crossplay is introduced.