Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Realist

Ah, I figured it out

Recommended Posts

I was beginning to wonder about all of the unusual changes being made recently and then it hit me.

if you put together the nerfing of animals and the increased cost of stone structures you can actually see what they are doing.

arks servers were full of lag and the main reason for that was massive bases and so many tames they reached the server cap on a constant basis.

they are making sure to slow you progress down so the servers don’t full lag out, but also to keep you interested in the game.

some might think that these bad decisions will make you leave. Nah, you won’t leave and they know it. They have you right where they want you.

i personally like the change in stone and tames. They create too much lag. I have seen it first hand on ark and these devs aren’t good at their job so they won’t be able to correct it once the damage is done.

this is also a grinding game. You only think it is a pirate game. I like they are putting more of an emphasis on grinding.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea, nope, peace..... no need to argue this point im just out the door...done with it....

Edited by Riceeater27
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they really are doing what you say then it's the worst decision ever.  Burn thier player base to reduce numbers?  Gamers are very unforgiving once pushed too far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hodo said:

Sad.... but probably true.

 

To be honest if you have played ark before at least towards the end game stages the lag becomes completely unbearable. And it is something they never fixed, well until now with the kibble rework which isn’t really a fix.

one thing is for sure, they don’t want animal farms and huge bases, that much is clear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or the better solution is make more servers? Ark had like what 500 official servers or some crazy amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dorf said:

If they really are doing what you say then it's the worst decision ever.  Burn thier player base to reduce numbers?  Gamers are very unforgiving once pushed too far.

Don’t underestimate ark fans. They will stay no matter how bad it gets. But yes, the casual gamer that isn’t familiar with wildcard will leave, not the ark fans though.

they have been grinding for 3 years already 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ravenguard said:

Or the better solution is make more servers? Ark had like what 500 official servers or some crazy amount.

More servers is not the answer.

Having a code in place to clean up the abandoned crap is better.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Realist said:

I was beginning to wonder about all of the unusual changes being made recently and then it hit me.

if you put together the nerfing of animals and the increased cost of stone structures you can actually see what they are doing.

arks servers were full of lag and the main reason for that was massive bases and so many tames they reached the server cap on a constant basis.

they are making sure to slow you progress down so the servers don’t full lag out, but also to keep you interested in the game.

some might think that these bad decisions will make you leave. Nah, you won’t leave and they know it. They have you right where they want you.

i personally like the change in stone and tames. They create too much lag. I have seen it first hand on ark and these devs aren’t good at their job so they won’t be able to correct it once the damage is done.

this is also a grinding game. You only think it is a pirate game. I like they are putting more of an emphasis on grinding.

I don't have faith that WC thought about it at all.

 

I see everyone reading into these changes so hard and so much, but in reality, I think Wildcard is just kind of clueless. Never attribute to maliciousness what can plainly be credited to stupidity. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ravenguard said:

Or the better solution is make more servers? Ark had like what 500 official servers or some crazy amount.

They already have that and then some.  Each region = minimum 1 virtual server(which would be enough to run 1 ark official server). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ravenguard said:

Or the better solution is make more servers? Ark had like what 500 official servers or some crazy amount.

Way more than that. It also sold a lot more complies though and there was a lot more money. To be honest there almost isn’t any point in more servers.

with an average of 30k players and 4 big clusters, that really equates into 3 of the 4 clusters having only 10k players and one big cluster having zero.

or another way to look at it would be 1 of the 4 clusters having 30k people and the other 3 clusters having zero on all.

ark did keep getting servers because the servers kept staying full. These clusters are no where near full so o don’t see additional servers being added.

there might not be a place to build but that is just the claim system. They are nowhere near full capacity so it is a different story then ark.

2 minutes ago, Ellentro said:

I don't have faith that WC thought about it at all.

 

I see everyone reading into these changes so hard and so much, but in reality, I think Wildcard is just kind of clueless. Never attribute to maliciousness what can plainly be credited to stupidity. 

I could actually be wrong, but this actually makes a lot of sense. They are trying to stop something that was a big deal in ark, but they are going about it in a stupid manner

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hodo said:

More servers is not the answer.

Having a code in place to clean up the abandoned crap is better.  

Honestly idk why they didnt use the current ark code. Current server code pretty much solves 90% of the issues.

Edited by Ravenguard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then they NEED to refund everyone's money then resell the game PROPERLY Advertised.

 

Atlas Game The New MMO over 40,000 players Able To Play Together On One Server ( As long as you Don't build or tame pets)

Edited by Implicitlee
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Realist said:

I could actually be wrong, but this actually makes a lot of sense. They are trying to stop something that was a big deal in ark, but they are going about it in a stupid manner

I mean, we both have about as much clue to the internal workings of Wildcard as the other, I just don't quite buy into the whole they're doing it on purpose. Wildcard couldn't even manage to put in respawning resources on purpose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Vaenix said:

They already have that and then some.  Each region = minimum 1 virtual server(which would be enough to run 1 ark official server). 

And technically double. Atlas servers are 150(they say) and the average ark server was 70 which is less than half. Even maps like ragnarok that have 100 per server is still 50 less than an atlas server.

Since there is 225 servers per globe and there are 4 globes, that is already 1000 total servers and since ark maps are on average half the size of ark servers that would be about 2000 ark servers worth of player slots.

i doubt they will be making more

2 minutes ago, Ellentro said:

I mean, we both have about as much clue to the internal workings of Wildcard as the other, I just don't quite buy into the whole they're doing it on purpose. Wildcard couldn't even manage to put in respawning resources on purpose. 

Lol, you got me on that one. And sure it is speculation but to me at least they have actually became pretty predictable and I can usually see what coming before it comes with them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OPs theory is way too optimistic.

I think it's for the streamers. Easier to pop structures are more cinematic for streamers, half these weird changes directly benefit pvp streamers and their entourage while putting their victims at a disadvantage.

Streamers are the cheapest way of advertising your game to a large audience and grapeshot seems to take advantage of this.  Remember how in the early weeks their twitter would never even address people's concerns or issues? All they ever did was plug pvp streams/videos.

 

/cynicism 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Implicitlee said:

Atlas Game The New MMO over 40,000 players Able To Play Together On One Server ( As long as you Don't build or tame pets)

You forgot 1 server is really 225 servers. Each with a max number of players per grid.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Realist said:

And technically double. Atlas servers are 150(they say) and the average ark server was 70 which is less than half. Even maps like ragnarok that have 100 per server is still 50 less than an atlas server.

Since there is 225 servers per globe and there are 4 globes, that is already 1000 total servers and since ark maps are on average half the size of ark servers that would be about 2000 ark servers worth of player slots.

i doubt they will be making more

Lol, you got me on that one. And sure it is speculation but to me at least they have actually became pretty predictable and I can usually see what coming before it comes with them

I doubt it is 1000 servers, more like 1000 blades.   And it also depends on the architecture they are running.  If it is like CCP and EVE, you can have several "zones" running on one server blade until it is needed then it will pull resources from other blades as demands increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RyuujinZERO said:

OPs theory is way too optimistic.

I think it's for the streamers. Easier to pop structures are more cinematic for streamers, half these weird changes directly benefit pvp streamers and their entourage while putting their victims at a disadvantage.

Streamers are the cheapest way of advertising your game to a large audience and grapeshot seems to take advantage of this.  Remember how in the early weeks their twitter would never even address people's concerns or issues? All they ever did was plug pvp streams/videos.

 

/cynicism 

 

Oh I am very anti mega as well. The reason why I know my theory is right is because this is there MO for how they fix stuff.

i didn’t bring up the advantage for Megas because on any change no matter how small the advantage will always go to the Megas, that is why I don’t even bring that up anymore. Being an ark veteran I am already familiar with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lynx said:

You forgot 1 server is really 225 servers. Each with a max number of players per grid.

That was never how it was advertised I just remember huge mmo 40,000 plaayers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RyuujinZERO said:

OPs theory is way too optimistic.

I think it's for the streamers. Easier to pop structures are more cinematic for streamers, half these weird changes directly benefit pvp streamers and their entourage while putting their victims at a disadvantage.

Streamers are the cheapest way of advertising your game to a large audience and grapeshot seems to take advantage of this.  Remember how in the early weeks their twitter would never even address people's concerns or issues? All they ever did was plug pvp streams/videos.

 

/cynicism 

Why buy the game, when you can save your money and just watch streamers play?

 

/cynicism also 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hodo said:

I doubt it is 1000 servers, more like 1000 blades.   And it also depends on the architecture they are running.  If it is like CCP and EVE, you can have several "zones" running on one server blade until it is needed then it will pull resources from other blades as demands increase.

Yes, you are correct. My point was mainly player slots and since the total amount of players slots being used to even equal to 25% of the total capacity, there would be no reason, especially financially to make any more servers.

as it is they could already combine na pvp with eu pvp, as well as na pve with eu pve, cut the total globes down from 4 to 2 and still have plenty of player slots left.

being able to build and the claim system is a different subject, but just looking at capacity they are actually running about 450 servers/blades too many 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Implicitlee said:

That was never how it was advertised I just remember huge mmo 40,000 plaayers

Both the map (all the server grids) and the player limit per map is well publicized.

You can download the map tool from github with the official map. Look on battlemetrics site for the individual grid limits.

 

I never did figure out how 15x15 map grids x 150 players/ grid = 33750 .... rounds UP to 40k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Devs should have taken a page from the Eve online book and made players and ships non persistent. Have ship insurance as a gold sink. Encourage an economy with MMO trade systems. Discourage huge laggy bases and zoos of tames with Limits. And tames should have something like a PixBlock/pokeball/cryoball.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't think all the changes aren't going to kill off big chunks of the player base you aren't paying attention. Ark was something new and fresh. If you look at every other survival game out there that decided to go an even bigger grind rout, they have no players. Players want to build grand structures and/or build fast and pvp. I think you are pretty accurate on your reasoning why though.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×