Well in my current game, it's happen in the west most side of Vlandia where the sea raiders hideout spawn. They are all over the few cities like Pervend and the villages around them.when I first saw it genuinly thought this was some kinda peasant or slave rebellion event that just triggered, didnt think it was a bug considering it was only happening in northern parts in sturgia
Just a normal day in the west coast
So in short the reason is "people not understanding that more stuff means more calculations means less performance."
It's not ideal, but I see why you would want to adress that problem. Is there any way to toggle between the slider or the tagged options?
I'd reckon in time we get a battlesizer mod that goes beyond 1000, if game and your setup allow for going to these scales anyway.
Yeah a full slider was better. I often want a fine adjustment to have 'just enough' of Monchung's 400 tribal horsemen ta once.Ye, the slider was perfect. Now you have less options. How is this better? Just a random change for the worse.
Couldn't you just keep the slider but attach a label next to it which changes from Very Low to Max depending on what the slider's set at? Then you give players the feedback they need while also letting them fine-tune their settings as they likeBattle size slider change from the previous patch has more than one reason.
All of the other options have quality definitions, but battle size slider didn't have those. It didn't conform to other performance options. Related to this, if a player maxed out the slider, they might not notice how this change will affect their battle performance and wonder why their performance so much worse compared to their expectations from their rig. Since they didn't have a reference point for the quality of the option. If a performance option doesn't have quality definitions, the player cannot expect what to get(performance wise) with the number they're selecting. Is 200 low? Is 300 low? Is 1000 very high or is it not? What number is the medium?
We had many instances of players reporting bad performance in battles and in their options, the battle size option was maxed out. This is mostly because previously we didn't give enough information about the quality equivalence of this option. Players didn't know what to expect with the number they're selecting.
If the game supplies an overall option, the options below the overall option have to be affected in accordance to the selection (If a player selects medium overall, they should see that medium selection, reflected in the other options). Just setting the slider value after an overall selection isn't enough since the player may want to change options after selecting an overall option. I do that as well. Most of the time, I select High overall and lower the AA to off or FXAA since I have a high res monitor. To represent this, battle size needed to be a selection dropdown.
Then it's a range, and that's not really the information that we're trying to convey.Couldn't you just keep the slider but attach a label next to it which changes from Very Low to Max depending on what the slider's set at? Then you give players the feedback they need while also letting players fine-tune their settings as they like
I think you're overthinking it. Just do 1-200 = Very Low, 201-300 = Low, 301-400 = Medium and so on. They're just arbitrary divisions, so it doesn't need to be that precise. Players will get the point.Then it's a range, and that's not really the information that we're trying to convey.
- If 1000 is max, what is 999? Is it high or max or custom?
- Is 601 max or still Very High?
- On non determined(not 200-300-400-500-600) numbers, is the slider going to say "Custom" or something else?
- Does the player need to select every overall(Low-High etc.) option and look at the slider to understand the corresponding number or try to hit these specific numbers by chance?
But like I said, by that implementation, 600 to 1000 would be max, and 601 and 1000 are very different quality/performance wise.I think you're overthinking it. Just do 1-200 = Very Low, 201-300 = Low, 301-400 = Medium and so on. They're just arbitrary divisions, so it doesn't need to be that precise. Players will get the point.
But why is there no in-between 600-1000? What about the boys who use to play 700-900, we now have to choose to sacrifice our troop count or our fps? This is not an enjoyable change I hope you understand, either way we lose out.Battle size slider change from the previous patch has more than one reason.
All of the other options have quality definitions, but battle size slider didn't have those. It didn't conform to other performance options. Related to this, if a player maxed out the slider, they might not notice how this change will affect their battle performance and wonder why their performance so much worse compared to their expectations from their rig. Since they didn't have a reference point for the quality of the option. If a performance option doesn't have quality definitions, the player cannot expect what to get(performance wise) with the number they're selecting. Is 200 low? Is 300 low? Is 1000 very high or is it not? What number is the medium?
We had many instances of players reporting bad performance in battles and in their options, the battle size option was maxed out. This is mostly because previously we didn't give enough information about the quality equivalence of this option. Players didn't know what to expect with the number they're selecting.
If the game supplies an overall option, the options below the overall option have to be affected in accordance to the selection (If a player selects medium overall, they should see that medium selection, reflected in the other options). Just setting the slider value after an overall selection isn't enough since the player may want to change options after selecting an overall option. I do that as well. Most of the time, I select High overall and lower the AA to off or FXAA since I have a high res monitor. To represent this, battle size needed to be a selection dropdown.
I can certainly bring up adding 1 or more divisions between 600-1000. I'll bring it up internally.But why is there no in-between 600-1000? What about the boys who use to play 700-900, we now have to choose to sacrifice our troop count or our fps? This is not an enjoyable change I hope you understand, either way we lose out.
ok, but you guys are the ones who set the divisions at 600 and 1000. Put another division at 800 then.But like I said, by that implementation, 600 to 1000 would be max, and 601 and 1000 are very different quality/performance wise.
Thanks, 800 would be perfect. The 400 gap is just too drastic on troop count and performance.I can certainly bring up adding 1 or more divisions between 600-1000. I'll bring it up internally.
If it's all the same between 600 and 1000, then it's not conveying anything. And yes I'll bring up adding 1 or more divisions between 600 and 1000.ok, but you guys are the ones who set the divisions at 600 and 1000. Put another division at 800 then. Or don't. The point is communicating the performance impact of different battle sizes. If anything over 600 is considered extreme impact, then just call "extreme setting" and let players decide where they set the slider
Are you referencing the battle size slider? If yes, can you elaborate on what do you mean by console performance, in relation to this change?Console performance boys.
It does though, because you've already set the pattern with the lower settings so that its obvious that bigger battle size = bigger performance hit. So if the last mark is 600 and the scale goes up to 1000, that says that anything over 600 is uncharted territory.If it's all the same between 600 and 1000, then it's not conveying anything. And yes I'll bring up adding 1 or more divisions between 600 and 1000.