Is this worth it for singleplayer, at least if it goes on sale?

[monopoda]

I already have ASE, and I enjoy it a lot. ASA looks like a direct upgrade, especially since they have it on UE5 instead of UE4.

However, there are a few bugs that can make ASE gameplay really unsavory, especially when I can lose a recently tamed Rex over it. Other than crashing, has anyone encountered bugs that can cause loss to dinos, structures, or items?

[Cryptix]

Originally posted by 𝓝𝓪𝓬𝓱𝓸𝓫𝓸𝓲:

Originally posted by Cryptix:

What would the difference be between a self-hosted dedicated SP server and playing the SP mode? Doesn't make much sense.

Game runs MUCH better since the client does not need to run the bulk of the processing (besides the game).

Significantly less bugs like resources not respawning and dino respawn issues.

Can leave the server on without being in-game to pass time.

Can choose to play with others if the option becomes available without copy/pasting files and redoing configurations.

CLUSTERS! Travel to any map freely without needing to back out of the game. Hope they fixed scorched transfers on clusters...

EDIT: forgot backups. Auto server backups in ASA are really great! ASM also had configurable backups that made things easy.

Much more.

Surely the client is hosting on the same PC though in most cases so why would it run better and why would there be less bugs? Why would you want time to pass while you aren't there if you only play by yourself?

I've only hosted a server for friends but we only played at the same time so haven't had to leave my PC on for others.

Ehh backing out the game isn't much of an issue really. I guess maybe if you aren't playing on an SSD it might take a minute.

It's definitely interesting to hear about as I would definitly start doing that if it's actually better than the SP mode. Just been playing that so far.

You can make backups of the singleplayer mode, I do just to make sure I don't lose any progress in the unfortunate event of it becoming corrupt. I have heard stories but thankfully nothing yet myself.

[Icarus]

Most of my ark hrs are from single player and asa is the same thing but better in every way
I didnt want to buy it tbh , didnt feel great about buyin the same game again and the haters were so loud i believed them

Now that i have it i 100% recommend it if you can run it and also are willing to use some commands lke r.volumetriccloud 0 if your machine needs it

Its still ark but on steroids , building is waay better , the map is beautiful , there are a ton of updates changes and qol additions to the base game .Your char and everything you do looks better and it does justice to the original feel ark gave when i first spawned on the island years ago
Its a great game and im glad i bought it

[Veeshan]

Originally posted by Cryptix:

Originally posted by 𝓝𝓪𝓬𝓱𝓸𝓫𝓸𝓲:

Game runs MUCH better since the client does not need to run the bulk of the processing (besides the game).

Significantly less bugs like resources not respawning and dino respawn issues.

Can leave the server on without being in-game to pass time.

Can choose to play with others if the option becomes available without copy/pasting files and redoing configurations.

CLUSTERS! Travel to any map freely without needing to back out of the game. Hope they fixed scorched transfers on clusters...

EDIT: forgot backups. Auto server backups in ASA are really great! ASM also had configurable backups that made things easy.

Much more.

Surely the client is hosting on the same PC though in most cases so why would it run better and why would there be less bugs? Why would you want time to pass while you aren't there if you only play by yourself?

I've only hosted a server for friends but we only played at the same time so haven't had to leave my PC on for others.

Ehh backing out the game isn't much of an issue really. I guess maybe if you aren't playing on an SSD it might take a minute.

It's definitely interesting to hear about as I would definitly start doing that if it's actually better than the SP mode. Just been playing that so far.

You can make backups of the singleplayer mode, I do just to make sure I don't lose any progress in the unfortunate event of it becoming corrupt. I have heard stories but thankfully nothing yet myself.

Some of the other benefits;

Client crashes don't affect server/friends (less important as quality improves.)
Better performance obv.
None of the common SP issues.
Having friends on properly (no tether, proper caving, etc).

Nothing game changing obv but lots of niceties.

If it were some tech feat to get a server running I'd stick with SP but since ASM made it so easy... (and it's quite easy already once you commit to the troubleshooting time to learn setup)

[Cryptix]

Originally posted by Veeshan:

Originally posted by Cryptix:

Surely the client is hosting on the same PC though in most cases so why would it run better and why would there be less bugs? Why would you want time to pass while you aren't there if you only play by yourself?

I've only hosted a server for friends but we only played at the same time so haven't had to leave my PC on for others.

Ehh backing out the game isn't much of an issue really. I guess maybe if you aren't playing on an SSD it might take a minute.

It's definitely interesting to hear about as I would definitly start doing that if it's actually better than the SP mode. Just been playing that so far.

You can make backups of the singleplayer mode, I do just to make sure I don't lose any progress in the unfortunate event of it becoming corrupt. I have heard stories but thankfully nothing yet myself.

Some of the other benefits;

Client crashes don't affect server/friends (less important as quality improves.)
Better performance obv.
None of the common SP issues.
Having friends on properly (no tether, proper caving, etc).

Nothing game changing obv but lots of niceties.

If it were some tech feat to get a server running I'd stick with SP but since ASM made it so easy... (and it's quite easy already once you commit to the troubleshooting time to learn setup)

Why would hosting a server for yourself have better performance than just playing the SP mode? Surely it would be the same or worse. Am I missing something?

Also, we were strictly talking SP mode vs SP hosted server, as someone said that running a server for solo was much better apparently. If it is I better start doing that because I'm basically a SP player at this point.

[Veeshan]

Originally posted by Cryptix:

Originally posted by Veeshan:

Some of the other benefits;

Client crashes don't affect server/friends (less important as quality improves.)
Better performance obv.
None of the common SP issues.
Having friends on properly (no tether, proper caving, etc).

Nothing game changing obv but lots of niceties.

If it were some tech feat to get a server running I'd stick with SP but since ASM made it so easy... (and it's quite easy already once you commit to the troubleshooting time to learn setup)

Why would hosting a server for yourself have better performance than just playing the SP mode? Surely it would be the same or worse. Am I missing something?

Also, we were strictly talking SP mode vs SP hosted server, as someone said that running a server for solo was much better apparently. If it is I better start doing that because I'm basically a SP player at this point.

Typically you'd run the server on another pc. Ark's sp mode is fundamentally different from most games, we've no idea what they did to make it run without a server, could easily be less performant.

The language to use here is dedicated versus non-dedicated. A dedicated server can run in the background of your gaming pc or on your laptop in the office. (Or in Nitrado's warehouse)

So there are *three* possible SP configurations.
*SP Dedicated (recommended)
*SP Non-dedicated
*SP Mode

I recommend using a crappy laptop, mine I use to pay bills, a $250 Walmart special that doesn't even have a gpu, to run the server on your lan. If you're feeling spicy you can have at least four friends before performance starts to matter.

[Cryptix]

Originally posted by Veeshan:

Originally posted by Cryptix:

Why would hosting a server for yourself have better performance than just playing the SP mode? Surely it would be the same or worse. Am I missing something?

Also, we were strictly talking SP mode vs SP hosted server, as someone said that running a server for solo was much better apparently. If it is I better start doing that because I'm basically a SP player at this point.

Typically you'd run the server on another pc. Ark's sp mode is fundamentally different from most games, we've no idea what they did to make it run without a server, could easily be less performant.

The language to use here is dedicated versus non-dedicated. A dedicated server can run in the background of your gaming pc or on your laptop in the office. (Or in Nitrado's warehouse)

So there are *three* possible SP configurations.
*SP Dedicated (recommended)
*SP Non-dedicated
*SP Mode

I recommend using a crappy laptop, mine I use to pay bills, a $250 Walmart special that doesn't even have a gpu, to run the server on your lan. If you're feeling spicy you can have at least four friends before performance starts to matter.

I still don't understand, when I play on a server vs playing the SP mode it's got exactly the same performance. I don't understand why people are saying it runs worse. People are saying it runs worse but how so? Less fps? What specifically? And why would it be the case?

I'm trying to figure out why I might want to switch to hosting a server for myself instead of playing the SP mode.

Also, does running a server on a different machine require two copies of the game? Whenever I try to play the same game in multiple instances, Steam tells me I am already running a game.

[Frosty]

Doesn't it mean that for running a dedicated sp server on a crappy laptop for instance would have to necessitate to buy another copy of ASA? And besides i am not that well versed in running a server and such.....

[Derivat949]

Originally posted by Cryptix:

Originally posted by Veeshan:

Typically you'd run the server on another pc. Ark's sp mode is fundamentally different from most games, we've no idea what they did to make it run without a server, could easily be less performant.

The language to use here is dedicated versus non-dedicated. A dedicated server can run in the background of your gaming pc or on your laptop in the office. (Or in Nitrado's warehouse)

So there are *three* possible SP configurations.
*SP Dedicated (recommended)
*SP Non-dedicated
*SP Mode

I recommend using a crappy laptop, mine I use to pay bills, a $250 Walmart special that doesn't even have a gpu, to run the server on your lan. If you're feeling spicy you can have at least four friends before performance starts to matter.

I still don't understand, when I play on a server vs playing the SP mode it's got exactly the same performance. I don't understand why people are saying it runs worse. People are saying it runs worse but how so? Less fps? What specifically? And why would it be the case?

I'm trying to figure out why I might want to switch to hosting a server for myself instead of playing the SP mode.

Also, does running a server on a different machine require two copies of the game? Whenever I try to play the same game in multiple instances, Steam tells me I am already running a game.

Yeah I don't get it either, the game is GPU limited and obviously even if playing on a server your GPU needs to render everything locally so fps would be the same. And why would the game be less buggy and crash-y if the most common crash is either a DX12 hang or the game making an eronious memory call? Would appreciate an explanation since I'd consider switching if it's actually factually better and not just placebo or hearsay.

[Spynosaurus]

Yes.

[EdrickV]

If you were using a server to play the game, even if it was on the same computer, the server would be run as a separate process, so the game client might crash but the server would keep running. In normal single player mode, I suspect it still uses a server/client model, but the server process and client process are tied together, so if the client crashes, it takes the server with it. If the server crashes, and it hasn't saved lately, you can lose progress. But if the client crashes and the server doesn't, then you wouldn't lose progress. On the other hand, time would continue while you are restarting the client and trying to reconnect, so in theory you could lose a tame in progress if it wakes up before you reconnect, or lose a dino if you were in combat when the client crashed, etc.

And according to a video I just watched, you, now, don't need to have a Steam account that owns the game to download the dedicated server, but if you do own the game, then you ought to be able to use your account to download the server and run it, whether it's on your current PC or another one. Not sure if you can access it through the library or if you need to use Steamcmd.

Edit: I took a look, and you can install the dedicated server from the library page. Do a search for Ark, with the "installed" button off, and the dedicated servers for ASA and ASE should both show up, Might need to have Tools enabled in the drop down.

[darien]

Originally posted by monopoda:

I already have ASE, and I enjoy it a lot. ASA looks like a direct upgrade, especially since they have it on UE5 instead of UE4.

However, there are a few bugs that can make ASE gameplay really unsavory, especially when I can lose a recently tamed Rex over it. Other than crashing, has anyone encountered bugs that can cause loss to dinos, structures, or items?

You might want to buy ASA eventually. I believe i read from Discord that Wildcard will be adding another dlc to wrap up with Arks story but it will be only on ASA. Also new mods will be going on ASA and might be limited to only ASA too. For now though, the Game is in EA and has very little content. Wait for a sale and then wait for at least 1-2 years so the game has the same level of content as ASE at least.

[BEEP!]

I wouldn't touch the game till they fix the performance because low setting with almost everything off on ASA runs worse and looks worse than ASE on near max settings so unless you have a banger of a PC it's not really worth it at all especially on a AMD card because there's no FSR to lean on so if you have a low end or even mid end PC like I do it's better to just stick to ASE for a while because the only difference is the QOL changes which isn't really worth $44.99.
For me ASE runs at 70-90fps on near max settings on ASA on basically the lowest setting with like half a dozen settings turned off which makes the game look like it's from the early 2000s barely runs at 60fps with drops into the 40s-50s so yea it sucked so much i refunded.

[Scar]

I mean wait to see if SP no resource respawn bug gets fixed unless you want to lower the respawn timer.

[Silver]

Originally posted by Phoenix:

Okay, well they are optimizing the game and fixing bugs still, it's a rough launch, but here is what to expect:

#1 Upgraded building system, it is SO much better, like, insanely better.

#2 Occasional Crashes, If you save every like 5-10 minutes you will be fine, they are gonna fix them eventually... I haven't lost any progress besides like maybe a bit of wood or something stupid, not a huge deal just keep saving, if you lose your whole save to crashing cause you aren't saving that's on you.

#3 Corrupted files? I am not sure, people are mentioning it but it just isn't happening to me, I am thinking maybe it's from people who are porting their ASE worlds, but I could be wrong.

#4 Better Modding Support

#5 DLC Updates

#6 Survival of the fittest seems like it's gonna be built into ASA, which means it's playerbase will probably be much larger

#7 Graphics, they need a lot of optimizing, but with a 3080 and a 2700x I can run high everything and epic textures/general graphics or whatever the other setting is called and get 50-60 FPS. there are console commands you can run to increase fps like volumetric clouds 0 or something like that.

Wild card has never optimized anything. Ever. They haven't even acknowledged there was anything wrong with the OG ark. Never. In 9 years. and they sure as hell won't with this. They might fix the crashing. Eventually. But anyone saying they are gonna optimize are literally gaslighting newcomers to this franchise. They are more likely to go run off and make Atlas 2 and try again and hope they can succeed so they can pull the plug on anything with the word Ark in it.
Yes. Not compulsively saving like a paranoid crazy person every 5 seconds because the game optimization and stability is ♥♥♥♥ and the company released it broken is 100% my fault because I didn't put in tons of extra effort mitigating the problems that the developers haven't fixed even now. It's like handing someone a belt and telling them to smack you as hard as you can and after they leave a bright red mark and tears streaming in your eyes, you say thank you WildCard. I really needed that. It was my fault I was a bad free thinking consumer. I will be more submissive from now on and open my wallet whenever you need.
Also with a card 1 tier below the top tier GPU from last gen that is still very much on par with it's 4080 counterpart without dlss 3.0 I can run this remaster of a game that was supposedly developed on UE5 that is infinitely better at optimizing and helping to reduce the load and strain of resources in the game engine so users have a better experience compared to UE4 + 9 years of developer experience utilizing the UE4 engine that would definitely carry forward to UE5 to make it run better in the game engine so users have a better experience. That's like saying a 14900K or 7950x3d can run Starcraft 2 pretty well. Well I would ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ hope so for that price point and insane raw brute force computational power and IPC gain.
And don't @ me about the 4080 being way more powerful. Nothing in the 4000 series has gotten even close to being a true upgrade from it's last gen counterpart besides the 4090. It is the only card that is actually massively better across the board. The 4000 series is Nvidia trying to sell you a 3000 series card with some extra software built in being DLSS 3.0

[Silver]

Originally posted by lost:

I have roundabout 180 hours on my singleplayer save (multiplayer ARK just doesnt seem like my cuppa tea) and Ive only had any data get corrupted once, when I suddenly lost power IRL whilst re-acquiring engrams after a mindwipe. Even then, it was real weird how it happened; I lost my player data, and had to start a new character in a new tribe, but all my dinos and structures and whatnot were still there, so I just used console commands to transfer the dinos and structures to my new character, and then re-give my XP and whatnot. I was even able to get my items from my previous body (its actually still unconscious on the deck of my house lol)

And in my personal opinion, as someone who never owned any of the paid DLC for ASE, that made it even easier to justify getting this game, since I would have had to pay pretty much the same for all the DLC for ASE, and theyre all included in the price of ASA when theyre released. So for me, Im getting all the DLC I never owned for ASE, plus a very significant graphical upgrade, and many awesome QoL improvements (better AI, better pathing, better building, dino tracking and GPS tracking are no longer item-specific features, etc.) for not much more than what Id pay for just the DLC on ASE anyway. If you own all the DLC for ASE, this of course isnt as simple a decision. However if you dont, this is a pretty solid purchase.

They pulled the bait and switch on us already with ASA not being free. Yet your going to confidently say that it's all gonna be bundled in and keep their word because they said they would. Sigh. 100% we are gonna get an announcement about a Scorched Earth Delay under the guise of polishing or something special. Then that something special will be an announcement way later saying they are releasing Scorched Earth, Abberation, and Extinction at the same time in a bundle but it's 60$ and will gaslight the community saying that's a steal since it's only 20$ a piece. Followed by "But we assure our fans and community that Genesis and all other DLC will be 100% free. Yeah. For sure this time. Like for real for real. Trust me bro" And then the people that will die for this company no matter how much Wildcard abuse and beat them like an ex-girlfriend. They will say omg they are so amazing and generous! I'll gladly pay 60$ since they said all the rest is gonna be free! And then the cycle repeats. And then Ark 2 will launch for 100$ with a 500gig file size and they will pull the plug on anything ASA related or in development.