Is this version worth it? honest feelings please.

[KingGhostie]

Wondering if I should get this, or not. My PC can run it. I have a 3070 with a ryzen 7 CPU,and 32 ram,but I hear bad things about this version. Like how you can only get servers with nitrado,and they are expensive. I hear how you have to pay to use mods? That's a huge disappointment. The biggest one being how there like just a bit more than 9k players on this version of ark while SE version has more players. So is it worth buying this version? Do you think the game will get better? What's your thoughts,and honest feelings about this version of ark?

[mudplayerx]

I play on a 4090 with everything on max and at 4k and it is beautiful. My friend plays on a 3080 and I can't really tell the difference from the old Ark because he has to turn clouds, foliage/water interaction off and set most settings to medium or low.

[servantOfJESUS]

if you want to play official pvp

the only thing you need to pay for is pyromane!

but also you may need bob's tall tales for the cosmo spider when aberration launches sept 4th depending how good it is


you don't have to buy any mods if you don't want

to me the biggest draw of this game was the official server reset

but all the QOL improvements are nice

and the fact they are actively updating/improving the game


sept 4th also is supposed to see an unreal engine upgrade and big performance improvement


edit: there are plenty of players

if you play official pvp until you get tek-tier you will wish you could encounter other players less :D

[KingGhostie]

Well I mostly do pve in ark,but that was cause back in evolved the game felt so janky,and laggy. The game didn't feel smooth enough to play PVP. I wasn't gonna end up getting frustrated cause I crashed during a raid,or freaking rubberbanding. So the PVP doesn't really interest me unless the game feels smooth,and responsive enough then I might give it a go. I was watching some YouTube videos of people doing arks 300 player civilization experiment where 300 people just get released on a map, they have one life,and they do whatever. Looked kinda cool, but I doubt I'll get into that since all the drama with the pyromane.

So I just loaded up scorched earth with the dlc,and everything. I can run the textured on high with the rest on medium. Whoever said medium setting look like evolved needs to go back,and play evolved cause it still looks way better than evolved. I do have the textured on high though. I haven't tested how it runs on official/unofficial yet. I do hope though that wildcard pushes out some optimization updates. use I am only getting like 55 fps on scorched earth,though the new update soon should make that better with the unreal engine 5 update coming soon.

[Slactal]

Originally posted by Delta Green:

Originally posted by KingGhostie:

Wow. I can't believe with the Nvidia 30 series are having a hard time with this game. You should have no issues running this game. It really sucks to turn it down to medium since the graphics is one of the reasons to play this version. I was considering getting it since aberration is coming out,and that was my favorite map. I also figured game been out for awhile now,and you would assume they made the game perform better. I still have no idea if I should risk buying it cause I do love ark,but not sure if it the performance is worth it.

40 series cards don't just bring hardware to the table, they also bring better software too, and this is a prelude to what is to come with old cards versus new games. AI will absolutely shape performance in gaming going forwards and devs will rely on this over actual optimisation, meaning older cards owners will find themselves further down the ladder.

That said, there is a performance update in September as they move to Unreal 5.4, while Frame Gen is being removed in favour of FSR 3.1.

- https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/ark-survival-ascended-players-should-pay-attention-to-september-4-not-for-aberration/ar-AA1oZxbQ

your concerned on tuning it down to medium meanwhile i have the reccomended pc specs and i have to runnit on all low just to get 30-35 fps with drops to 25 abd thits with volemetric clouds off and fog off and water reflection off. idk why mabye cus im running linux but i dought it

[KingGhostie]

Originally posted by slactal:

Originally posted by Delta Green:

40 series cards don't just bring hardware to the table, they also bring better software too, and this is a prelude to what is to come with old cards versus new games. AI will absolutely shape performance in gaming going forwards and devs will rely on this over actual optimisation, meaning older cards owners will find themselves further down the ladder.

That said, there is a performance update in September as they move to Unreal 5.4, while Frame Gen is being removed in favour of FSR 3.1.

- https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/ark-survival-ascended-players-should-pay-attention-to-september-4-not-for-aberration/ar-AA1oZxbQ

your concerned on tuning it down to medium meanwhile i have the reccomended pc specs and i have to runnit on all low just to get 30-35 fps with drops to 25 abd thits with volemetric clouds off and fog off and water reflection off. idk why mabye cus im running linux but i dought it

Yeah I'm not really experiencing any lag,or anything. The game runs great for my computer. I get a steady 55-60 fps,I'm able to run the game on high textures. I double check if you really are using the recommended system requirements cause you should be having better fps than that if you were.

[Sahayak]

Originally posted by JB-emmanuel-Zorg:

Originally posted by Sahayak-db:

ASA runs like crap. I run medium settings with a lot of the ini tweaks in order to get a good balance of framerate, stutter, view distance loading artifacts, and all of the other problems.

I have a R7 5800X, 16Gb RAM, 4080 SUPER and with all of my tweaks, mostly medium and a few high settings, and long view distance, I can get about 40-60fps.

I think it's a mistake to have the 2nd best graphic card (in N'vidia) that exists at the day of today, end of August of 2024 (in 4/5 months will be release the 5080 and 5090), and ONLY have 16 Gb ram... (and if you look on the main page of ASA, WC RECOMMEND 32 Gb ^^).

No, it wasn't a mistake. It was intentional. I have 16gb of ram specifically and intentionally.

[Maarud]

For me: no issues,no problems,love it

[Slactal]

Originally posted by KingGhostie:

Originally posted by slactal:

your concerned on tuning it down to medium meanwhile i have the reccomended pc specs and i have to runn it on all low just to get 30-35 fps with drops to 25 and this is with volemetric clouds off and fog off and water reflection off. idk why mabye cus im running linux but i dought it

Yeah I'm not really experiencing any lag,or anything. The game runs great for my computer. I get a steady 55-60 fps,I'm able to run the game on high textures. I double check if you really are using the recommended system requirements cause you should be having better fps than that if you were.

im just barely below recommended specs and way above minimum specs:

12 × AMD Ryzen 5 3600 6-Core Processor
31.3 GiB of RAM
AMD Radeon RX 6600

recommended specs:
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X / Intel Core i5-10600K
32 GB
AMD Radeon RX 6800, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080

Minimum specs:

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X, Intel Core i7-6800K
16 GB
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT, NVIDIA GeForce 1080

if i can berly runn it with my specs theres no way its runnable on the minimum specs.

[KingGhostie]

Originally posted by slactal:

Originally posted by KingGhostie:

Yeah I'm not really experiencing any lag,or anything. The game runs great for my computer. I get a steady 55-60 fps,I'm able to run the game on high textures. I double check if you really are using the recommended system requirements cause you should be having better fps than that if you were.

im just barely below recommended specs and way above minimum specs:

12 × AMD Ryzen 5 3600 6-Core Processor
31.3 GiB of RAM
AMD Radeon RX 6600

recommended specs:
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X / Intel Core i5-10600K
32 GB
AMD Radeon RX 6800, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080

Minimum specs:

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X, Intel Core i7-6800K
16 GB
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT, NVIDIA GeForce 1080

if i can berly runn it with my specs theres no way its runnable on the minimum specs.

Well I'm just barely below recoccomended. I meet all the stuff except my GPU is a 3070,and they recommend a 3080. I have no issues running this game,so it's something with your computer.

[Slactal]

Originally posted by KingGhostie:

Originally posted by slactal:

im just barely below recommended specs and way above minimum specs:

12 × AMD Ryzen 5 3600 6-Core Processor
31.3 GiB of RAM
AMD Radeon RX 6600

recommended specs:
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X / Intel Core i5-10600K
32 GB
AMD Radeon RX 6800, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080

Minimum specs:

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X, Intel Core i7-6800K
16 GB
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT, NVIDIA GeForce 1080

if i can berly runn it with my specs theres no way its runnable on the minimum specs.

Well I'm just barely below recoccomended. I meet all the stuff except my GPU is a 3070,and they recommend a 3080. I have no issues running this game,so it's something with your computer.

HMM ima have to figure it out

[krunjar]

Short answer .. No. It has a few cool things in it that evolved should have had added to it years ago but other than that it's a reskin. And all the new graphics are so poorly optimized that it's a lottery on whether your hardware will be able to run it. Regardless of wether you meet the minimum or even recommended specs.

[Creamy Cvm]

not worth

[KingGhostie]

Originally posted by Pancerny Malarz:

not worth

It was totally worth it. Not sure why everyone is complaining. They added in a lot of new stuff the old game didn't have, so yeah it was worth buying. I have no regrets, I'm having a lot of fun with ark ascended.

[Hawk]

It is a very buggy game, at least from my experience. According to SteamCharts the 30 day average for Ark: Survival Evolved is 25,670, the 30 day average for Ark: Survival Ascended is 12,878. So there are about twice as many people playing ASE than ASA.

I went back to ASE as it is a much better game with the mods. ASA seems to be a in your face money grab which I dislike so I will not support ASA.

[KingGhostie]

Originally posted by Hawk:

It is a very buggy game, at least from my experience. According to SteamCharts the 30 day average for Ark: Survival Evolved is 25,670, the 30 day average for Ark: Survival Ascended is 12,878. So there are about twice as many people playing ASE than ASA.

I went back to ASE as it is a much better game with the mods. ASA seems to be a in your face money grab which I dislike so I will not support ASA.

Yeah I really don't know what everyone talking about the game runs fine. I bet more people would play ASA if they had decent computers. From where I stand that's the only reason why more people play evolved. Asa brought in so many qol updates that I found so annoying in evolved. I can't go back after experiencing ascended it's just a better game.