Early Birds
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

3 Gathering Thatch

About Kyoshu

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • ARK Platforms Owned
  1. Should Ark add a monthly Subscription?

    I believe that dedicated servers not from the devs work well with instance or quick play types of games where nothing is permanent and each "round" is maybe 15-30 min long. Then sure, by all means, I agree that the playerbase can support their own servers. However, ark is a different beast where growth and expansion is expected to be permanent and consistent like major mmos. No one wants hundreds of hours lost nor have admins that abuse their power or are inactive. The best people to do this would be the company itself like how Blizzard has their own official servers for WoW where permanence is a driving factor in the game.
  2. Please devs make x2 permanent

    Ark already added 2x though. It was a long time ago, but a permanent 2x is already there. Honestly, anymore than that and the game feels too easy. It's in a good place now imho. Still grindy but with some work and time you can obtain what you want, but not too bad where it's grinds to a halt and you burn out from the grind
  3. Should Ark add a monthly Subscription?

    I don't think the devs would like the idea of microtransactions based on what they said about their vision on ark and how those types of practices turn "a good game bad." Although I do believe that the devs are missing out on a lot of profit on not having some skins be sold as a pack or purchased a la carte. They can use that money to put more of a social aspect in ark with skins, costumes, etc. In every mmo I've played, people go crazy over good skins and designs spending hundreds of dollars just for some skins. It's optional, doesn't affect gameplay much, and the gained income can be used to hire more support staff or programmers/graphic designers. Either way, it's not healthy model to simply rely on new game sales and dlc sales. A company that has to manage a continuous cost such as servers need to have continuous, background income to help balance those said costs. Subscription for official servers or a cosmetic cash shop will help immensely with that. Of course, this is assuming that the cash shop will not take priority over actual content/dlcs. But then again, I'd still rather just pay a subscription than deal with cash shop shenanigans. 15 bucks a month is worth stable, multiple servers on top of the usual content push from devs.
  4. Should Ark add a monthly Subscription?

    Trolls are in every game and are more of an annoyance really, but they're not too bad on ark. The fee isn't to stop trolls, it's to have better and more servers while having more admins as well to help with dinos getting stuck under the map, bugs, glitches and whatnot.
  5. Should Ark add a monthly Subscription?

    You bring up a great point actually! Since many people either play singleplayer or over LAN, they shouldn't have to pay any subscription. I think if you want to play on official servers, then you must pay a subscription. Unofficial, private, etc wouldn't be charged of course
  6. As you know, many players dedicated thousand of hours into ark out of sheer love and enjoyment of this one of a kind game. However, at the end of the day, Wildcard is a business and like all good businesses, its goal is to make money. The money is used to support their employees who help create new content (very quickly too compared to many other mmo type games!), fix bugs, implement change, respond to tickets, and other background management/maintenance. I'm an avid player of mmos and have played in many games with many different models of income for the devs from free to play with cash shop, subscription, buy to play with no subscription, to phone games that are free but have invasive in game ads. All of these are a way of helping the devs pay for maintenance and continuous updates in hopes of gaining players or at least, player retention. After 1000 hours put into ark over a span of about 3 years, I've seen ark grow from alpha to beta to full release. I took a year hiatus and when I came back recently on ark, I was quite pleased with the amount of new content, quality of life mechanics, graphics, and overall, a sense of completion in the game, at least compared to over a year ago when the game was much more unstable, laggy, and much less end game content (bosses didn't give you anything or unlock anything back then). After perusing the forums and boards regarding ark, it seems that players are extremely frustrated at the lack of official servers. pve tame cap, and as usual, the many bugs, lag, trolls and delayed content. I would like to propose the idea that ark become a monthly subscription based game in order to help lessen player grievances, expand their customer support service, aid in dev to player communications, and overall, give them the ability to work on the game to the best possible state without worrying about their bank accounts if not enough new players purchased the game. This would align the the idea of keeping with the dev's vision of having all content be accessible to all players, aka no cash shop phone game type of game play with gatcha lottery. After playing Final Fantasy 15 mmo, the subscription I paid for per month was more than worth it as the game was very well polished with consistent new content and improvements with very satisfactory and quick customer service. I was even happy to pay for the dlcs on top of that as well. The financial model of the game, IMHO, is the best model where the company met their bottom line while being a satisfactory game for all players. Here is a basic summary of some pros and cons with subscription model in ark: PROS: 1. Income could be directed to increasing the number and quality of stable servers 2. More staff for Wildcard to help divide tasks on both front end and back end development 3. More official server admins to help complete open tickets and resolve player issues quicker 4. More programmers to help release new content in a timely manner 5. More staff in helping maintain a consistent and professional PR with players (many people will avoid buying a game if it has "Mixed" reviews on steam, of which PC players are the biggest buyers of ark with steam being the largest advertising platform). 6. Wildcard will not be dependent on new players purchasing the game while ignoring long time players for income, thus they will be able to focus on the main grievances of most players, mostly bugs and performance issue. Cons: 1. Overall number of players will decline (but some might see this as a good thing as it would mean less trolls, less crowded servers, etc.) 2. It's a monthly subscription and many MANY players will be vehemently vocal about the change from buy to play to pay to play. This will be the biggest issue imho. 3. Initial workload on the dev side of implementing either their own standalone auto draft payment system or purchasing third party system, such as steam, in managing their subscription model thus increasing overall workload thus delaying much needed content/fixes. 4. Possible player tickets that can't be resolved through devs but through a possible third party company. In conclusion, I believe that a subscription based model will improve both the lives of the devs and the players. I believe that much of the gripe from players come from lack of customer service, content delays, lack of official servers, and unpolished core game mechanics/quality of life features (like improved building). Is ark worth more money on a monthly basis? IMHO, absolutely! If it was more polished with more robust customer service with fairly active admins on the servers, it would absolutely be worth every penny every month. Most people who play Final Fantasy 15 online are more than happy to pay for a subscription on top of a aesthetic cash shop and the quality of the game is fantastic! I believe ark is big enough with great devs who see through with their vision rather than just abandoning the game (looking at you Stomping Land). TLDR: More money invested = better product and service for players.
  7. Refertilizer not working for some Trees?

    Thank you for the input, I'll try that and maybe I'll get my beautiful front yard trees back ;-;
  8. I believe there is a bug where refertilizer does not work on large trees such as the one in the picture. This particular tree is on the Ragnarok map on the far southwest corner island. Is this intended or just an overlook? I hope to restore some of these very beautiful trees at my base. It adds a nice feel to the area