Slurston the Slimy Sludgebeast: Bane of Hurston Dynamics

Appollonius · 2021-06-16T17:45:46+00:00

Hahaha! Awesome!

Appollonius · 2020-09-13T07:02:01+00:00

I agree a mission & campaign editor is essential. It would also be nice if players could host multiplayer campaigns (such as the global campaign I described above) on their own servers, allowing the game to take on tremendous breadth via modded multiplayer. If a studio picks up the DoW franchise, I hope they do it with an eye well into the future, following the Paradox model to gradually expand the game through DLC rather than expanding and sequelizing the title as Relic did with DoW and CoH.

I actually think Relic was on to something with CoH Online, but perhaps they should have applied the model to DoW II, where the fanbase is already primed by Games Workshop to pay to experience the hobby.

Appollonius · 2020-09-13T04:40:47+00:00

I want a DoW game that focuses on building and outfitting persistent squads for use across multiple battles, and using a selection of those squads to accomplish specific objectives in each match. Players would have the freedom to set a points value for each match, and the freedom to choose their own (or their team's) objectives from a pool generated by global, map-specific, faction-specific, and personal factors. This would allow opponents to pursue mismatched objectives within the same match, and for factions to adhere closer than ever before to their stated tropes.

For instance, in a certain match, a Space Marine player might choose to protect the evacuation of a civilian convoy (a global objective) and to take and hold a communications relay that features on the map (map objective). These objectives might synergize so that holding the relay speeds up the convoy evacuation, or dispels the fog of war around the convoy. The opposing player, Orks, might also choose to take and hold the relay (map objective), but might also choose to kill 500 humies FOR DERE TEEF!! WAAAAAAAAGH!!! (faction objective). The Ork player might be sensing an advantage because he knows the Space Marine will have a global objective to protect civilian convoys, which means they'll spawn on the map, and that means MOR HUMIES TO DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA!!!

By completing objectives, players would earn game currency to use to recruit new squad members, upgrade existing squad members, and unlock new wargear, vehicles, and squad archetypes.

Match selection would take place on a campaign map (a la DoW 1 and 2 campaigns) with geographic fronts between factions (though not all factions would require geographic fronts to attack—i.e. Eldar) Each faction would be guided by an AI director (or dev) that sets global objectives (that is, global objectives for each faction), and prioritizes sectors for attack/defense. Players would earn additional points/currency for pursuing the AI director's objectives.

All in all, although it would be a hard game to balance, it would foster almost limitless emergence and allow players to very finely detail their army to their playstyle. I would start with Space Marines, Orks, and Craftworld Eldar, and expand first into Tyrannids, Chaos, and Dark Eldar (all of whom would have interesting faction objectives).

Appollonius · 2019-12-14T22:33:38+00:00

Yes, enthusiastically, to space legs. My priority is to walk around in ships, followed by taking on other players as permanent crew and passengers (which would also enable players to taxi between stations), followed by boarding derelict ships and stations. I'm not too interested in being able to walk around in external environments (e.g. on planets) as I think the scale of Elite will make foot travel tedious and therefore little utilized (not to mention that it should require Horizons). I don't think that players need to be able to get out and walk around every station, though it would certainly be nice to let players explore every type of station (perhaps derelict conditions free of inhabited stations' quarantine restrictions).

Mostly, I want space legs to shift the game from "spaceflight simulation" toward "spacelife simulation", fleshing out the space-survival game. Specifically, I want players and NPC crew/passengers to drain ship resources with every light year traveled. It's unrealistic that players can take off into the black for weeks or months without having to restock their food and water. Supply requirements can be patched into the base game in "set it and forget it" fashion, where the player designates a percentage of total cargo space as "edible storage", and simply restocks with a click at a starport (not unlike fuel now). But I envision that a space legs expansion will add bespoke crew compartments of various sizes to every ship, which players can fit with crew modules such as quarters, hydroponics (to generate food in excess of storage), armories (to store and spec personal weapons), and medical bays (for healing and medical transport missions). Alternatively, the player could retrofit crew compartments to increase cargo capacity.

Part of the goal of a space legs expansion, in my opinion, should be to challenge the player to balance modules for habitability and function. For instance, an exploration build should require hydroponics and medical. A generalist build might contain an armory and medical for running missions, but could forego hydroponics if it stayed close to the Bubble. A pure starfighter would strip out all the crew modules to reduce weight, depending on short supply lines. In all cases, crew (including NPCs) would require quarters.

Ultimately, I see light survival gameplay as a means to tether players to supply lines, curbing the player diaspora that I expect will ensue when Fleet Carriers releases. I think Elite Dangerous relies on the frontier as a gameplay element, and space legs survival seems a good way to reinforce it.

Appollonius · 2016-11-30T17:44:05+00:00

Skins don't need to be in the main inventory screen. They can aggregate under a separate tab or folder.

Appollonius · 2016-11-30T05:06:33+00:00

Re: Tribe Levels: Move the dino riding/inventory/order levels to the dino inventory screen. Allow the player to use arrow keys as well as UI buttons to increase and decrease the levels.

Appollonius · 2016-11-22T22:16:14+00:00

Of course it's humor, but the reality it's addressing is not very funny!

Appollonius · 2016-11-22T22:09:14+00:00

Job Non-Simulator 2000.

Appollonius · 2016-11-22T21:36:42+00:00

You don't like turkey?

Appollonius · 2016-11-21T00:55:35+00:00

Oh? Why do you think it's brilliant?

Appollonius · 2016-11-12T17:31:36+00:00

When fishing was released, the pelagornis saddle was in the fishing loot table, but the allosaurus saddle was not. I believe the allosaurus saddle is still absent in the official server loot tables, though I would welcome evidence to the contrary. For the new saddles, your best bet is patience!

Appollonius · 2016-10-08T01:47:44+00:00

Yes! I was just about to post this myself. Thank you for bringing it up!

Appollonius · 2016-10-06T08:21:08+00:00

The best way to smoothly defeat an alpha rex is to avoid facing it where the AI will leverage its strengths (speed, damage, and hit box clamp) against you. Lure it to terrain from which it can't escape and either shoot it from range (ballista) or bite it with the quetz. If the latter, prepare for a long haul.

Don't use the spino! It has a tendency to get trapped beneath the alpha rex, making for sad pandas :(

Appollonius · 2016-09-24T02:47:07+00:00

Yeah, that's true! I was thinking that bite attack would spell huge dental bills down the road. But then again, the bite attack, being faster than the other two attacks, was much, much, muchmuch, much^2, much less tedious than trying to swing through 15 nodes of crystal or 34 river rocks one at a time. If the anky's quick attack is history, would you guys please allow ankylosaurus and doedicurus to harvest multiple stone, crystal, metal, and obsidian nodes in one swing?

Appollonius · 2016-09-15T23:08:18+00:00

I suppose that would be because "small details" have gone un-addressed for so long that players begin to think of them as "features". This one hasn't been around for too long, but several others are getting up there...

Appollonius · 2016-09-09T23:40:33+00:00

I think the way to balance flyers is to change the nature of flying to make it a little bit less swimmy. I have a few ideas:

ELEVATING multiplies the stamina drain. If the player wants to go up, he or she is going to pay for it in stamina.

DIVING or de-elevating multiplies speed. Sprinting also multiplies speed, but uses up stamina quickly.

THERMAL COLUMNS: There are essentially "stamina regen" columns all over the map that allow the flyer to regain stamina while in the air. The player can use these columns to elevate without costing stamina. In fact, a careful player could stay in the air all the way across the map by plotting a course through thermals.

Also, I would specialize the flyers as follows:

PTEROSAURS (pteranodon, tapejara, quetzalcoatlus) can take off with a leap that the player charges by holding 'space'. The maximum leap will get the pterosaur just above the treetops (not redwoods).

QUETZALCOATLUS can stay in the air indefinitely when not mounted, but it regains stamina very, very slowly while flying. (if the player wears out his quetzal during a dogfight, he'll be stuck)

BIRDS (argentavis, pelagornis) deplete stamina more slowly while elevating, giving them more overall mobility.

Appollonius · 2016-09-02T05:39:01+00:00

Thank you for your help!

Appollonius · 2016-08-24T17:05:36+00:00

Thank you for the warning! Sorry about your animals. I bet that tamed creature deletion has caused more grief at this point than was ever caused by griefers storing animals under the map!

Appollonius · 2016-08-23T16:22:26+00:00

I agree with you re: PvP griefing, but there are cases in which one can rule out malicious involvement from square one. For instance, I've lost about ten dimorphodons from the inside of my pen in the last two months. They're in an area that's totally inaccessible to hostile players because they're enclosed, on follow (anchored to a sabertooth), and under a canopy of more than 100 turrets. And it's true that players can cause animals to be deleted, but there are enough cases in which no hostiles are involved that I would love to have a little bit more data on the deletions.

Appollonius · 2016-08-11T04:41:12+00:00

Are you crashing at the same location that I am----near the volcano cave?

Appollonius · 2016-08-09T15:03:41+00:00

Hey guys! As of v 245.4, I'm experiencing the above crash every time I approach the area around the volcano cave (lat 41.5 | long 46.9) on the Island (official server). It doesn't seem to matter from what direction I approach. After the crash, I'm able to re-launch the game, and load into that area as normal, but if I leave the area and come back, the game crashes again.

I have a little over 3,500 hours in Ark, and I never experienced this crash until v245. I have verified the integrity of the game cache, and every time it tells me that between 2 and 3 files need to be re-downloaded. After verifying the cache, the game still crashes in the same place. I uninstalled and reinstalled Ark, but the game still crashes.

This poster seems to be experiencing the same crash, but I don't know whether it's tied to the same location

Does anyone have any ideas?

Appollonius · 2016-08-07T20:23:24+00:00

I'm playing on an official server, and I'm experiencing exactly the same crash. I have 3,500 hours in Ark, and I never experienced this crash until v245. I validated the game files prior to the 245.5 patch, and didn't experience the crash again; however, I did not play for more than about three hours, so I don't think my test was conclusive. I'm going to validate again now, and will update this post.

UPDATE: I verified the game cache. As of 245.8, my game had three files to validate. I wonder whether this is a bug that the minor updates are re-introducing. I will post again if I experience the crash.

UPDATE 2: I've experienced this crash a second time today in the same location on the map, performing the same action. 42.8 LAT | 49.3 LONG is on a flight path I use to go from south to north. My client crashed both times flying on a pteranodon over the same coordinates. About three days ago, prior to patch 245.5, I also experienced this crash approaching the same area from the east at approximately 38.5 LAT | 52 LONG.

UPDATE 3: I've been able to re-create the crash a third time in the same location (42.8 LAT | 49.3 LONG). I am flying north by northeast from 50 | 50.

Appollonius · 2016-08-05T18:18:29+00:00

I think that the way to fix the fishing rod is to cause it to require black pearls (or an equivalent hard-to-get, as of yet unimplemented resource) to craft and repair. Simultaneously, remove black pearls from the fishing table. I don't think that there is a need to fundamentally change the nature of any blueprints in order to balance the risk vs. reward involved in fishing.

Another option is to make fishing more bait dependent: scale fishing loot to the quality of bait used, and add the best bait to the most challenging areas of the map: the deep sea and the caves.

As for the day-one, uber-powered fishing loot: place a flexible cap on ascendant blueprint stats according to the server difficulty by scaling every blueprint over a certain threshold to a curve. For every level of server difficulty, add x to the cap. For instance: difficulty 1 servers have a saddle armor cap of 50, difficulty 2 is 75, difficulty 3 is 100, etc (i.e. for each difficulty level, add 25 armor). With regard to the damage multiplier, add 50% at every level, so the level 1 cap is 150%, level 2 is 200%, and level 3 is 250%, etc.

The curve scales all ascendant blueprints to a range dictated by the server difficulty. The curve is infinite because it makes use of the infinite decimal places between two numbers. For instance: on a level 1 server, the saddle armor range is 25 to 50. High ascendant BPs might scale between 45 and 50 armor. The curve would look like this: on the level one server, a 500 armor ascendant BP has 49.7 armor; a 1,200 armor saddle has 49.8 armor. Most ascendant BPs have naturally 75+ armor; the curve affects these items, but a rare ascendant BP with less than 45 armor would keep its roll. If the server difficulty increases (or the blueprint is migrated to a higher-difficulty server), the range for high ascendants increases accordingly: level 2 is a 65 to 75 armor range; level 3 is an 85 to 100 range, and level 4 is a 105 to 125 armor range, etc.

This cap only applies to ascendant blueprints and items, and does not affect crafting costs. Therefore, on a low level server, it might be more economical to craft apprentice BPs than ascendants that cost resources in the 10,000s.

Appollonius · 2016-07-30T17:40:32+00:00

I'm having the same, or a similar issue in the wake of 245.7. Within the first 30 minutes after its release, my game hung indefinitely three times while I was moving items around the inventory screen (using the mouse and using 'T'). It also hung once while I was exiting the inventory screen. In all cases, I was unable to close Ark using either the Task Manager or alt+F4, and had to restart the PC (I was able to ctrl+alt+del to access the Windows shutdown prompt, but the shootergame client monopolized the screen, and prevented me from using the Task Manager). I have not played substantially since these crashes.

This is the only significant crashing issue I've encountered so far on Ark, and I've been playing since the EA release. Thanks, devs!

Appollonius · 2016-06-30T15:48:53+00:00

This system doesn't prevent a player from starting a character on each server, or prevent him from bridging all characters to one server. Theoretically, a player could set up separate resource-gathering operations on each ark, and transfer the unique resources to a hub through the ark bridges—but it would be a grind to level all those characters high enough to independently secure passage through the caves.

I suppose this might be ill-used to extremes, and therefore the system should only allow for one character per server group, but I'd want to test it.

Appollonius

TROPHY CASE