• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

143 Making moves

About Novarae

  • Rank
    Hide Armor

Personal Information

  • ARK Platforms Owned

Recent Profile Visitors

1048 profile views
  1. Officials- Do they want us to quit?

    I've addressed this -many- times both on here and on the steam forums. Short answer is yes, the do but not framed in the way or thinking that you present. They have stated multiple times(you can see Kayd even say so in the Extra Life Charity event stream on twitch: They encourage players to play on unofficials with mods and customized game play to match their interests or needs. Notice they're not saying "we don't want people to play official servers". At first this may look like the same thing but it isn't. They're saying here is our official basic features showcasing servers. They're intentionally intended so and with out goals and wants in mind. Then enter players who complain about the conditions of those servers for what ever reason. Dev's then post encouragement to seek what they want via unofficial servers. Ark is a game designed with the intent of modded content and customized game play so of course that's what devs are obviously going to say. The pedestalling or veneration of official servers to be something beyond what they were intended to be is not the fault of devs but the fault of players, groomed by expectations and experiences from other games, to impose and project the same thinking upon official servers for ark. They're not intentionally pushing people off. It only feels so because the situations don't match those with cognitive dissonance being unable to reconcile their wants being different from the dev's servers intentions. The majority of players of ark have fundamentally understood this or kept up with being informed of this being the case and for them many of these issues others lament about because they have yet to accept that have not. There is of course another issue at play that feeds gas to your frustrations or thinking but it is something that everyone who plays ark, regardless of official, unofficial, or even single player(though much less so for them) is affected by and that is the core flaw of the design of the game being unable to be sustainable with its current engine/game design in context to server/rig limitations and worse grooming exponentially those issues by the design philosophy encouraging sandbox, free choice, wildwest-style play, and unsustainable player numbers per sever. So, not ironically, both player and dev wants are the same on one hand but also neither can reconcile their wants with the reality of the situation. And worse, there is no meaningful long term solution with the current game that can sustainably change that. The more that sober to that realization, at least then on one level the more it can help to a certain degree the issues.
  2. Turret Nerf - Alternative Discussion

    Your solution isn't treating the issue (especially in faster firing as each bullet and targeting is a number crunch that was part of the problem originally ). Higher damage also doesn't address the overwhelming zerg forces issue rendering the turret limitations either. There is a significant balance issue at play, not just in terms of pvp but also server stability and sustainability. Players wants or perception of necessity per the current design and implementation of the game meeting and not being able to reconcile with the issues that the ecocide brings both from an in game and meta level. That said, its helpful to separate wants/needs from capabilities/incapabilities to start. Doing this, turrets alone are not the issue. The architecture and design of the game on the engine and on the limitations of the server in context to numbers that cause massive, exponential demands on a server and the game's design when players push those beyond the breaking point. Turret limitations whilst increasing marginally the damage still shifts the paradigm (in the minds of players at least) to making bases less defendable. That is very well true, especially in the current manner with how groups can overwhelm bases with numbers. So does that mean a need exists to mitigate how those numbers do that? Higher defense numbers on structures? Limitations on player accounts on a server(both in concurrency and number of accounts that can come to a server new? That would render some other features(like cross ark transferring less viable or break entirely). Even higher turret damage rates(whilst still not necessarily mitigating an overwhelming force. etc. I honestly think there is no viable solution that is going to match either side's wants without a complete and utter overhaul of the fundamentals of the game, not just in terms of pvp either. To achieve server sustainability would involve not just these turrent changes but really dramatically reducing player numbers per server, triple the current caps and restrictions on taming and construction and more. This would be even worse of a result in the eyes of many but it would allow servers to not be precariously on the cusp of lagouts or crashes or other unfavorable game play issues. Reducing other functionalities of the turrets would similarly cause this to be the case in other directions. So looking into turret solutions isn't going to be a meaningful solution to the problem. Overhaul of the entirety of the design and or coding there in would be the only solution and that's something I'm sure they are already aware of but are unable to implement. But at the very least my suggestion is to with the context of what I've said above, look for overarching ways to reduce the server demand so that features the devs and players both want to remain can be best rebalanced under.
  3. To be quite honest, with regards to the thread I started from the yellow journalism article from MassivelyOP on Ark, my take away was how ignorance of the game(afterall the author of the article admits to having never used modded content every in the comments later(and that being a big core of what makes ark ark) and that articles or players intentional disinformation bias about the game or the devs directly is an issue that likes to feed itself and as well feed on itself perpetually. I'm not saying there there isn't a certain level of an epistemic bubble surrounding the team, almost any studio does unfortunately have such to varying degrees, but I didn't find, for example, that Chris' reaction to it and the things going on with the thread to be invalid either.
  4. MassivelyOP 's Article on Ark(not good)

    Just noticed on the Massively article that in the comments I'd cited articles with links refuting some of the claims MJ or others were making. Guess what? Yep. They removed them since it didn't fit the false narrative they want to spread. Yellow journalism at its worst.
  5. MassivelyOP 's Article on Ark(not good)

    Well to be fair Chris, I did think Eli was just simply reiterating what Jesse said in that article a week ago about sequel things: MJ probably didn't even get news of what Eli said and instead got it from Tanek(who posts here) who is her assistant for streams and their server(s). Though they may have gotten it as a news tip(though doubtful). I tried to set the record straight in MJ's article though linking that interview but MJ is just(and I say this in the most generous way) clueless about ark(and most games she streams or articles she writes), even after 1500 hours she's had in it. She doesn't media monitor Ark(nor anyone on their news site team) and just rely on tips or some articles from other sites they read. You think she would with so much time actually supposedly invested in it but no. I used to send them tips for many years but I've just stopped because half the time MOP just bungles it. I keep a running folder myself of articles, tweets of relevance, and other wise to debunk disinformation like MJ's article or typical steam forum posts similar(same really) as best I can but one bad thing that is of merit is that MJ's ignorance is about par for the course of what I see every day on steam sadly.
  6. MassivelyOP 's Article on Ark(not good)

    Massively's gone off the rails in recent years to be sure. I don't fault the issue with it being from their split with AOL (as they were let go and Engadget is the resulting newsoutlet otherwise). More or less the head of Massively just hasn't put much effort into keeping the site up to date and moving with the times, relying more on pieces that are meant to get page scroll of comments versus meaningful articles(I don't call it click bait, I call it comment bait). Worse MJ is their "streaming/media manager" and if you watch their videos, paint peeling is a more entertaining and informative watch(and I'm being generous). Watching her ark ones is her droning on, dying, laughing she died, droning, dying laughing she died on and on and on.
  7. MassivelyOP 's Article on Ark(not good)

    At the very least PCGamer at least got it right that the person they interviewed is the CEO and not as the MassivelyOP writer MJ goofed on.
  8. Just a bit of background about the article author: They have a semi public server and steam group and have had the server for 2+ years. They do not use nor have ever significantly discussed or streamed about modded content(their server is mod free and they've always expressed dislike for mods). Unless she changes it since its been pointed out in the comments section of her article, she doesn't even know that Jeremy isn't the CEO of Wildcard instead of Doug. Honestly while some of her points are of merit, much of her article is just conjecture and an axe-grinding rant.
  9. Server Cap Exploitation PVE

    1. Indeed, with tens of thousands of unofficial servers out there there are plenty of bad ones, ones that do disappear, and more. But there are still many that have been around for as long as or longer than even some legacy official servers lasted. Also, you may want to add there are some that go down for days or weeks at a time(and there are many instances of the same going on with official servers too mind you as has been cited in the past). Also, some servers do not have such week/month required settings to play on. Some have much more relaxed settings catering to their needs/interest of their players. This is why folks take the time, if wise to vette servers to match their needs/interests. But again official steam servers lost 250+ of them, while there was certainly notice seen by some for others who didn't see such, it was thus without notice for them(albeit a small number obviously and more due to their inactivity in most cases). 2. I think that's a bit assumptive, if not erroneous to state that people hang on official servers is due to customer service. This is especially so, as you cite when legacy servers receive virtually no customer service post the 29th. Also, its been cited that WC was actually not addressing official servers issues for weeks and weeks prior to the 8/29 change because they new said change was coming and didn't feel they warranted to be addressed. I think that is more compelling evidence to state that pedestaling the quality and fidelity of said customer service may be misplaced. That's not a feather in the cap for WC when it comes to how people who play/have played official servers pre/post 8/29. And again, there are plenty of unofficial servers where the owners or admin do treat people fairly, unbiased and actually not just reactive(as WC is primarily and only) but also proactive. Again duds out there but with over 25 times the number of official servers out there, there are choices to be vetted. 3. Again wholly and erroneously assumptive on your part. At no point did I mention or discuss the point of their being free as a reason for people playing official servers. I'm not sure where you pulled that from. This sounds more like you were attempting to throw out disinformation to segue into your desire for a subscription based model for official servers. As I iterated(though didn't specifically address though I will now), that is just Band-Aid on a brain tumor. In fact I would counter that in a game where devs pay players stipends to work on their mods(since 3 of our current 4 dlc originate from mods) that such is counter intuitive because they are needing and encouraging people to play modded content for the purpose of integrating/incorporating into the game in a more official capacity for the purpose of, quite frankly, being a revenue draw. After all the more robust the game is made, the more they have with which to market by. And lastly to address your last paragraph, if you read what I wrote, you'd note that I mentioned both unofficial servers and single player. But as expected, you and others miss the primary point being stated: this situation the devs have created intentionally and because of their design and implementation philosophy focusing on custom game play and modded content. Again devs have stated this to be their intent and again encouraged people to play unofficial servers in the situations where they lament the conditions of official servers. They aren't discouraging you or anyone from playing official servers and that distinction is too small perhaps for you to understand at this point(as I said some would not) but I would say the evidence is compelling that they are saying that if you want to play on them, then accept the conditions there in. The irony is that that is where the true accountability lies and hence why the analogy was given in my previous post despite your churlish reaction to it.
  10. Ark: Aberration

    Yes its delayed again. In this article yesterday, CEO Doug Kennedy discusses various things and at the bottom of the article it states the dlc now will come "next month":
  11. Server Cap Exploitation PVE

    My responses will probably not make you feel much better but they will at the very least offer some alternative thinking to the issue. To best help to couch this, I'll be addressing this in relation to the steam/pc status on this situation but invariably this really applies to all. When you have choices to easily move to the suburbs and nice gated communities but instead choose to live on the 15th floor in a rank apartment in city welfare housing, complaining about the roaches and smell becomes rather perplexing. Before the 29th of August, the steam official servers numbered over 950. When the switch was flipped, that number dropped to below 700 and still is only just now barely at the 700 mark. As well since 29th of August, people have continued to purchase and play the game, as well as some who quit returning and of course some quitting etc. But overall its been relatively a net gain of people one can argue. Your complain reflects a symptom: overcrowding. But here's the cause: Wildcard wants to encourage people to play with modded content and customized settings. Notice, I've not said(by intention) that Wildcard is discouraging people from playing official servers. Its a very fine distinction probably for most because they just see the end result of a deficit of 250+ servers(250+ actually were repurposed to consoles according to statements made a while ago). But it is important, yes, to recognize that that loss was intentional. They very well could've made those 250+ pc official new servers but they didn't. Obviously once Aberration eventually drops in the coming weeks(months depending on some betting pools), there will be a net increase in servers but the likelihood of their being that much more as to equate to the pre 8/29 loss is low. So when you begin to understand that all of this was intentional and that frustrations are framed by people with expectations to the contrary, those frustrations and suggestions for change become rather futile. A Band-Aid on a brain tumor really. Where I personally fault the wildcard team is in their reticence to more transparently make that clear, not the decision to do otherwise. Kayd for example when the issue of officials comes up like in the charity event stream on twitch the weekend of the 4th(where I intentionally asked him the question btw), encouraged people to play on unofficial servers. They do not market the official servers to say "Officials are basic feature showcase servers and or public test realms, understand your choice to play there accordingly". Instead they say, this is how the conditions are at the moment on official servers, however we encourage you to consider unofficial servers or single player if you would prefer more control on settings and game play conditions because we encourage people to play the way they want. More than one dev on the team has iterated this in various ways. All in all, the point is that once you start to frame that official servers in this manner, and make different choices, much of these issues become non issues. Otherwise, choosing to play in these varying conditions of ecocide of the official servers one just has to accept/reconcile that the situation is not going to be improved to any meaningful level long term.
  12. Ark: Aberration

    Actually no. It was in regards to a question specifically asked on the chatroll asking about official vs unofficial server viablities(not worded in this way but if you watch the stream you'll catch as he repeats the question on camera before discussing. I know because I asked it.
  13. Is the hate Ark Devs well deserved?

    Battlemetrics has much more search filter options for my taste. Also is more about selling "featured" space than actually being a meaningful list sadly enough. But there are like 4-5 ark server list sites out there really and in general I consider arkservers towards the bottom of em.
  14. Dye making secrets?

    There are various mods out there that make painting much easier that some unofficial servers employ on Steam. Whether this would be something you would find works for you or not I don't know.
  15. Ark: Aberration

    I think overall this direction of thinking is just going to frustrate you more and more as time goes on. Ark is, for all intents and purposes, -never- going to be finished, perfectly optimized, etc. Games with active and progressive development never can be because each step, change, addition, etc takes those goals out of synch. Even top games have this similar issue and their forums are a'glut with lamentations in this regard. Does that mean WC couldn't do a better job? I most certainly think they have many areas that they could improve but there has been a consistent pattern for 2+ years with how these things go and no indication of that changing in a direction that would satisfy you or others with similar thinking.