wildbill

Yes, I agree, mods are one of the biggest things that made unofficial server popular. Right now, you can only play ARK modded with unofficial servers. Also you can only play ARK modded with a PC, not consoles, as no mods for consoles. ASA will have Overwolf to allow for cross-platform play. So mods will run on consoles. But all mods, and which mods will be ported to ASA and when? A large number of mods work fine with ASE even though they haven't been updated in a year and most will just keep on working on ASE. But NONE of the existing mods will work with ASA without some kind of modification and submitting them to Overwolf. Also you have to assume not all mods will work with consoles, so those mods would be rejected by Overwolf. For instance many of the modded maps. I have written mods myself, not for ARK, but for Minecraft. Money was never a driving factor, in fact not a factor at all. Money alone isn't going to get all of these mods ported over to Overwolf. There are lots of reasons people write mods, but I would guess making money from them is no where near the top of the list for most modders. I'm actually predicting just the opposite affect. That the lack of mods equal in number and quality that are available for ASA will be one of the factors that slow the adoption of ASE. Another factor that could slow adoption is cross-platform. We have yet seen how the cross-platform requirement of ASA (assuming it is a requirement) will affect the ability of modders to create mods for ASA. If I was modding for ARK and I could chose between writing a mod for cross-platform Overwolf and a PC version for ASE, I'd choice the PC version. Modders often make mods they themselves will use. The modder is using a PC to develop the mod. So PC will often be their preferred platform. I'd like to hear from some ARK modders in here. I might just check out some of their discords to see what they are thinking.

I was thinking I had no opinion, but in writing this post, I realize crossplay if the only option, it will be a really bad change to ARK. So let's assume ASA is only crossplay, and ASE remains available and can only be played with no crossplay (since crossplay was only available on official servers with no mods). I'll continue playing ASE in that case, only on unofficial server like I've been doing since 2017. I won't be playing on any ASA official servers. I will even continue playing ASE for some time after ASA is released. Would be nice to play ASA only after it comes out of beta and has most of the bugs ironed out, has more than a few maps, and has many mods supported it (like ASE does). At that time, I expect there will be quite a few unofficial server clusters to chose from. That is what I consider the optimal time switch from ASE to ASA. I will say this about crossplay (from experience with it in Warframe). It can not be implemented without adding new bugs and play issues. There will be different load times (although this has always existed with PC too, those with high and low end systems have a different game experience). It will also limit the mod selection a server can have. I'm hoping there will be an option to turn off crossplay, but we will see. If not, you might see the life of ASA with mods on unofficial servers have a much longer life than WC would hope for. ASA could have a much wider selection of mods if crossplay could be turned off. If not, only mods that work both on PC and consoles can be used. Consider that ASE with mods has a huge selection of mods and ways you can play ARK. From complete reworks to game play and unofficial maps you can play. ASA with only the approved mods on the new cross-platform modding system will be much more limited. For many players, ASA is won't be an improvement until several years of its development are complete. The ultimate experience of ARK has always been on a PC with mods (so unofficial servers). I don't see how crossplay can ever be as good, even with improvements and UE5. So really, I don't ever want to play ARK with crossplay.

Yes, back to the subject. I only brought up the Media Echo Chamber because some people here are using posts and video from that media as proof of some kind of consensus of opinion. And my point is, there is no real consensus, just an imaginary one provided by media echo chambers. For instance, you are saying ASE is dead. I'm going to disagree, since the majority of us play ARK with mods (sorry about you console players, ASE will not have mods, but ASA is expected to). Modders should be able to update existing mods running on ASE and even develop new mods for this platform. Really the ultimate experience of ARK (in my opinion, and also the opinion of some youtubers I watch) is ARK with mods. I have literally played maybe 1k hours of ARK with no mods and over 7K hours with mods. No proof, but I'm thinking I'm in the majority, that most people playing ARK play it with mods. Mods should extend the content available for ASE for quite a few years. It won't matter one bit if no updates are made to ARK ASE itself after September 1, 2023.

Ya, not quite accurate. It is Snail Games that is in control, as it is the owning company. WC did not make over a billion dollars even if that much money was made from ARK. Petitions are great, I have no problem with them. Even 10,000 signatures for a very popular game like ARK is not even close to how many people are playing the game every hour of the day. No idea what percentage of the total player base that is, maybe somewhere around 0.1%?

See my other reply. I guess I assumed more people understand the current problem with our media today is how it is distorting reality and leading to and enforcing polarized beliefs (not always based on fact) because of algorithms, not just on youtube, but in all social media that actively selects for the reader mostly just content similar to content they have read previously. This leads to the distortion of the reader thinking their belief system is more common and popular and well accepted than it actually is. Media today distorts reality in other ways too, it also prioritizes content that generates a stronger emotional reaction, often content that makes you angry or mad. Because of the flaws in media today, including youtube, you are likely getting a distorted view of just how many people really like or don't like the changes occurring with ARK. One thing I've seen is many youtubers are making a big deal out of the shutdown of the official servers and the algorithm on youtube seems to be giving preference to those videos. That doesn't mean it is the most popular opinion, it simply means that youtube feels those videos will generate the most views and the most ad revenue for their company (Google). So you see, it is really all about profit for these media companies.

I even included a definition of how media today is simply an echo chamber. Look it up, because you didn't understand what I meant by that. It isn't the youtubers themselves that are echo chambers, it is youtube's algorithm for what content they show you that makes youtube an echo chamber. For instance, if you are a mega republican, you will think 90% of the people in the U.S. are mega republicans, because you will seldom see anything political in youtube that is not of that political belief. This is the algorithm of youtube, not the mega youtubers that are making youtube an echo chamber.

Youtube is an echo chamber. I'll define that for you. You like a certain topic enough, youtube provides you more content of the same topic. So in this case, you are unhappy with WC. You watch videos about it. Youtube then feeds you more videos of other people unhappy with WC. It looks like all ARK players are unhappy, but you just aren't seeing those videos of people that are happy, because youtube is just echoing back to you what you like to watch, which is videos of people unhappy with WC. And yes, you do not speak for all console and PC players. I'm a PC player and you don't speak for me. So stop acting like a troll and saying you do speak for me. If you narrow that down, and say "you speak for console and PC players on the official servers", well that might be a bit more accurate. I, like over 50% of ARK players, don't play on official, so really don't care that much about what happens there. In fact, I agree and have for a long time, that official servers other than a few that wipe often, like the beginner's servers are a complete waste of WC's time and money. The best experience of playing ARK with other players is not on the official servers at all. To be clear, the best way to play the game (at least for me) is on a dedicated (unofficial) server.

Hate to say it, but you are really sounding like a troll.

Yes, you can get a copy of your dinos, but I think only as an entire copy of the server. You can then use this I think for single player or a dedicated server. The current ARK should be playable for awhile. I don't recall how single players works, I think there is a version of it that runs on your PC that is similar to a dedicated server. I would hope it runs in that version. Remember, no game lasts forever and you can't expect your dinos to last forever either. I mean they usually last longer than a pet hamster, but most of mine have not.

I get the bary, then the basil, since the bary is a big help in the tame. I don't like the other three. They just seem to get eaten eventually when I have tamed them.

Right, I don't believe the hardware requirements will be less either. About the price, the only thing that matters to any company that is non-profit, is what the market price to set to generate the most profit. The price is not set by what it is worth based on the cost to develop it. So you thinking they could develop for less is just you wishing they were making the game just for you and not for their actual reason, to make money for Wildcard and also the parent company (and shareholders). So it really isn't relevant what price you think it is worth (which was my original point, but maybe poorly stated). So that is my actual argument, that price is not set by the amount of work needed, but by profit motives.

Well the customers will decide. If enough people buy ASA, then it is worth the price. The market will decide. I'm undecided. I'll wait to see it when it comes out (review videos). I'll decide then, but I'm guessing I'll be buying it. I will also want to see what the system requirements will be. The biggest cost of any new game is really the PC hardware needed to run it (for a PC gamer). If I have to upgrade my 2 PCs to run it, I might wait a bit longer. Same for the console players. Many might need to buy a new console before they had planned that purchase to play ASA. Compared to the hardware you run ARK on, $60 is really not very much at all.

Their first idea of how to port ARK to UE5 was just what you describe. And they thought it was no big deal like you describe and it was going to be free. After they got more familiar with the UE5 engine, the devs realized it wasn't going to be that easy. Also that there isn't any real point in just a straight over port if they didn't utilize the new features of UE5. It does sound like there is quite a bit of stuff rewritten now and many other changes made to the assets. I'm thinking it is going to look more like a new game than just the old ARK 1. Now if you don't believe that, you can keep playing the old game, but of course no more old official servers (this isn't the first time legacy servers have been removed, so no big surprise there). I work at a company that had to port our code from Linux kernel 4.x (32-bit) to 5.x (64-bit). So no big deal right? Took us over 2 years to do it. So you can think it is easy and they could have done it and they are not being honest with us. Me, I know better and believe them that the way forward is to rewrite quite a bit of the code and charge the customers for it. Any other way would result in failure and the end of ARK. Our company had a similar decision to make. Don't port to the Linux 5.x and watch the company slowly die.

So put a stop to updating ASE to ASA? Also put a stop to ARK 2? You do realize (or maybe not), that you paid for ARK 1 (ASE), not ASA or ARK 2, right? If you want to see the game get better and continue, then they need customers to pay more than once every 5 years or so. Heck, I bought ARK back in 2016, so 8 years ago. I did buy a few DLCs, so a few more bucks from me, but I got a great game for something like $20 a year. So for the price of 5 lattes a year. Pretty good deal if you ask me. You can boycott all you want. If you aren't paying any more money for ASA or ARK 2, then why would they care? You aren't a customer of theirs at that point. Customers spend more money, which apparently you don't want to do.

Bored the **** out of other forum readers posting that I didn't do anything in ARK today ? Actually I'm on vacation with lousy internet at the hotel so can't play.

I used to give stuff to newbies, but then I realized that griefers also ask for stuff. A lazy griefer can get a Argent and start greifing people even faster if you give him one (this happened to us).

I'm back from a couple of years break from ARK and finding some interesting additions that I want to try out. Like the cryopods. I've yet to try them, but they are next on my list of stuff to make. Last time I built a huge pen for my dinos with a roof over it was on Scorched Earth. On that map, with so many hostile creatures, a roof was the best option. I did it with ceilings and pillars. You don't say if you are on official or unofficial server. If official, I would recommend protecting those pillars from griefiers that could lead a dino into the base and under it to attack it. I placed metal pillars around the base to prevent this. Also I think dinos still occasionally fall through a ceiling and pillar floor system, so be sure to plan on a way to get any dino out from under your pen. For the breeding, the air conditioners do work better than campfires. A common technique that I've seen is to place them down and then build one level up ceilings over them and have a ramp to go up there. The egg then is placed of the ceiling with the air conditioners under it. Once again, have a entrance to go under and get to the air conditioners should you need to change or fix anything or get something that gets down there somehow.

LOL, on the classic setting, this white text is invisible. I can only read it if I select all the text.

I think he doesn't like the getting wiped part I only gave PVP a 3 week trial. I had four different bases on one of the no tame servers. A raiding party came through and cleaned out every one of the bases. These are guys on foot, so either there were like 30 of them, or they just dumped everything they didn't want onto the ground just so I would have nothing. I don't see the point of this type of game play. I too was in constant fear of this happening. When it finally did, I was relieved, as I could then quit and go back to the PVE I enjoyed.

I'm not familiar with how the XBox platform works. You can play on an unofficial, but just not with any mods, right? I'd recommend you try Crystal Isles then. The Crystal Wyverns are fast enough with no upgrade to their speed. The map has all the creatures of Scorched Earth and the Island. It is still incomplete, but a lot of fun to play. Besides the nerfed flyer speeds, the 2nd biggest problem with ARK (for PVE), is the grind. I'm playing it with a mod that removes much of the grind, but raising the rates on an unofficial can reduce the grind too.

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).

Hmm, some interesting conversations here, plus some beating a dead horse into a pulp too What I want to know is why this thread isn't called "State of the ARK"? Get it, "State of the Art".

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.

I don't think you have made your point, or maybe you think it is just obviously right? Those that think there should have been a full wipe can play on the new servers. Those that think there should be no wipe can continue to play on the legacy servers. Both sides of the argument get their way. What you don't get is to tell the other side what they have to do. So maybe that is really what you don't like about this decision?

I was trying to say that I think the servers that are pillared and hostile to new players will slowly decline in population and eventually be re-purposed. Those that are new player friendly should continue same as before. Hard to predict at this point, but I think a healthy server like yours should continue. Nothing is forever of course. I think if you promote it to your friends and advertise a bit where you can, it should continue for a year or two. I personally like to start fresh on a server every few months. I play on unofficial, since most people that host a server start it over fresh every few months. Works for me. People like me might go to the non-legacy, but are likely to quit playing it in a few months. You don't want those type of players (if I understand what you are saying) anyway.