DirkInSA

That also is "legacy". The first release of Aberration in ASE was also a pig of a thing that crashed a whole pile of people ..... Wait till Genesis II drops - then you will see REALLY big issues.

Thank you all for your responses. Yeah - I didn't want to spark a ASE vs ASA war but I guess that was kinda inevitable I also guess that the "weight" of responses here would largely be from people that are still Arking and so by definition DID get their monies worth. Most off the peeps that did not buy in to ASA, and those that did but have subsequently given up would not respond here. My personal choice to not buy into something punted as an upgrade with very dubious real benefits stands, and I am still happy that I made the right choice for me. Anyway, thanks again and good luck with your Ark endeavors! P.S. Ha Ha - I ain't "a poor" in any definition of the phrase. I have a monster computer, and I also ran ASE (client and server) for 1000's of hours with little to no crashes. My choice was about getting my monies worth. And my view on "monies worth" is "something new and exciting". Which I believed (and still believe) that ASA did not offer. Had ASE been continued with new DLC's and content I would happily still be throwing money at the product. Throwing money at the SAME game with a bit of polish on the pig - NO!

I personally declined the opportunity to buy into Ark Ascend. And I kind of dropped out of these forums since then. So (roughly) a year later, after a (very brief) scratch through the posts here I see: Moaning about Snail Moaning about servers Moaning about patches and releases Speculation about map availability and etc. Which to be honest is pretty standard for the Ark forums. So: Did the peeps that bought into ASA get their monies worth? Is the "new" game worth it? Does it improve the old ASE experience?

Stick with what you have - a working ASE cluster for your own pleasure!

If you look in the other thread ( ) Even buying a NASA computer may not avail you - there might be issues running multiple copies of the game on one public IP address, and there ARE issues running multiple copies of the game on one machine!

Stick with what you have - a working ASE cluster for your own pleasure!

Mmmmm Thats a massive list of mods. I personally would have a go without the mods to see if things improve. (Yes you will have to startfrom scratch on the map ). Otherwise your hard disk (ssd?) maybe not so cool, and what you are seeing is hardware fail?

Ignore the references to "lostisland" in the crash log. That is where the source code of the game was on the dev's machine when the game was last compiled. Nothing to do with the map you are playing. At a guess from the crash log it looks like your save game file is corrupted. You could try and delete (or maybe better, rename) Fjordur.ark, and then copy Fjordur_AntiCorruptionBackup.bak to Fjordur.ark. (Have you maybe been playing the with -usestore and -newsaveformat launch settings as per the "guide" for running officials on your own machine?)

@bluewizard Ha Ha - no I have absolutely no interest in WildCard or Snail or the dodgy server company! I am mostly agreeing with you. It is NOT hard to convert multi player to single player - on PC. But on console, unless you have a "hacked" console with the ability to get to the actual file system, it is very difficult. Simply because there is no way to "drop" that multiplayer map into your local game. And WildCard & etc. KNOW that, so they have tried to monetised console save games to the enrichment of Nitrado. Taken directly alongside PC saves being freely available this is clearly not good! But I say again, the root or cause that enables them to do this, is the way that console companies lock their devices down and disallow owners of the console to do stuff on their own box. In a way, one could argue that even a single player save on console does not "belong" to the guy playing. Because Sony / Microsoft does not allow you to do anything directly with that save. My main point is that when someone plays a game on online servers provided by the game company, they are totally at the mercy of that game company.

@bluewizard Yeah I guess you have kinda nailed it there. I have some comments to add: First being that a capable server that will run a "full" ark map needs to be a beast of a machine (from recent experience in booting download "live" saves). However the debt that WildCard incurred for renting Nitrado servers from March through June (= 1 mill US $) seems to be a lot inflated. I think that poor "partnerships" in the past probably led WildCard to even more poor monetary arrangements in the present. Second is that I guess that the "intellectual property" of the content of those official save games likely (I ain't a lawyer!) belong to WildCard and they can do what they like with them. They provided the game mechanics AND the platform to run those game mechanics over = their property. A guy on single player or private dedicated server maybe has a leg to stand on - they bought the game, facilitated the game, and likely can argue that they "own" the sever files. Third beging, the utter debacle that face console guys is (my opinion) probably more to blame on the console companies (Sony / Microsoft) than it is on WildCard. Those console people have inordinately many hoops to jump to be allowed to publish on their platform. And they are VERY proprietary about stuff that is allowed to "publish" on that platform, down to what exactly the published bit of software can do. So console guys - my answer is to shout at the owing company, not WildCard. Further - PC guys, take note of this in light of the trend to cloud this and online the other and etc. The path that the console makers are setting is looking to be the way for all "content". Last being, nevertheless - A good point! "Cloud based" online kinda games leaves the client (player) open to this kind of move. And on that topic I must say I have never been a fan of "online" games. I prefer to have the thing on my machine in my control and not subject to potentially dodgy updates and arbitrary game makers decisions. (With the option to privately "publish" a game server for my mates if I so choose). Sadly I am old school and in the minority of the cloud based, gotta have updates, game purchasing public at this moment, so that kind of game is like hens teeth.

Hmmm - I see a GasBag in the annoucement? What Dreadnought where ????

I think you are a bit off there? Megalodon size estimates vary depending on the method used, with maximum total length estimates ranging from 14.2–20.3 meters (47–67 ft) So maybe twice as big as now ... But no 3 or 4 times as big. Further, generally bigger = slower?

Good Luck

But that's the catch is it not "goin after all the hints and snippets shared"? These are just that hints and snippets. There is no evidence around what is ACTUALLY being done. Will game play be significantly better, or just the same old same old? Are the changes limited to a re-skin with pretty pictures? Are any of the touted UE5 improvements to the engine actually being USED or are they just wishful thinking on wild cards part? Cynically I must agree with @arkgerman1975 because my view is that this is a flat re-skin with NO real benefit other than some prettier screen stuff. Which is why I also am not interested in any trailer for a game I have played for the last 8 years. Nor interested in even thinking about buying such a re-skin before there is some real (sorry to me the pictures are not that important) benefit evinced by the "new" game.

OK - I did not know that ... Thanks