Search results for query: *

I clean reinstalled the game and with Beta 1.2.0 it's a bit better. They are on the right track with the optimizations as far as I have seen. I understand your issues. My PC is high end, not the top ofcourse, but I also think the game underperforms considering the hardware.
Also, play on custom battles on Desert Maps, I want to see if you have this exponential fps boost that I do. (It's weird how a bunch of trees and vegetation can cause so much lag)

[UPDATE]
As of now with the same settings i have noticed a bigger improvement with Medium settings on singleplayer battles with BETA e1.2.0
Murat Türe thanks for you and your team's hard work.

Keep up this pace, I will continue to update with the improvements.

SickStyle said:

And I know game will run smooth on a High-End pc.

Click to expand...

I have

GPU: Gigabyte GTX 1070 4GB VRAM
CPU: i76700K 4.00GHz Skylake 14nm Technology
RAM: 16,0GB
Motherboard: Gigabyte Technology Co. Ltd. Z170X-Ultra Gaming-CF (U3E1)
Storage Device (HDD): 931GB Western Digital WDC WD10EZEX-00RKKA0 (SATA )

The game runs at ~35-40 fps with 250v250 infantry in custom battles (also tested in campaign), and it can also drop as low as 23fps when getting close to the troops and melee.
So the game probably runs good either on SSD's only (which I don't know how it would make any sense), or, my pc isn't high end enough which doesn't make any sense.

JakobvanBicke said:

Your teammate will, however, then spawn as Infantry twice. So there's no real difference (only if 1 of you is a god in Cav and the other one a god in Inf). Also it'll cost you some seconds (between 10 and 20). That is time you don't spend fighting / capturing flags. Don't think that's a problem tbf


Well... I get that complaint quite often. I don't get it though. Shieldwall towards the archers, then go into line or light formation and charge them. You outnumber the enemy and therefore win the melee. If you keep your guys in shieldwall whilst charging you'll get **** on (as AI plays very defensive when in shieldwall). Same applies on how to deal with Cav charges. If you got your guys in shieldwall, square, or circle, they'll play defensive. I deal with cav charges by having my guys in square and then set them to charge when the cav is about to hit me. That way they actually try to kill the enemy and don't only hold their position.

Click to expand...

so there is more micromanaging to be done... hmm

Speaking of classes, can you people please explain to me how is it balanced that an unit of archers that have a chainmail, a shield, and a sword can 1v1 my armored infantry in melee?. (As an example i clearly remember: Imperial Legionary vs Khuzait top tier archers)

I have noticed there are plenty of situations where I just can't seem to defeat top tier archers that are geared. Not to mention the monumental amount of damage they deal and even with a shield wall formation I still bleed units.

Also, speaking of infantry, I remember using every infantry unit of Battania against the Imperial Legionaries and I couldn't defeat a single unit in combat. Took maces, all that stuff, I don't know...

Any tips and tricks? Me and my friends can't wrap around on how to combat in this game in some situations. It just makes no sense and it's not intuitive.

this really needs a fix...

The multiplayer is both unfinished in combat mechanics and unbalanced with the classes.
There are plenty of times where I have to be amazed by archers that have swords and shields,chainmail and mange to 1v1 my armored infantry ON MELEE.
Cavalry just get's stopped by spears and goes away to prepare for another attack without enough penalty.
Archers deal a ton of damage and shield hitbox is a bit too small for projectile based weaponry, so even if you have shields you still bleed units because of that.
Heavy damage infantry on one faction (Aserai) surpass Heavy damage infantry on another (Empire).
[Just to explain it, Aserai has axes that deal a ton of damage (same with Sturgia), while the Empire has something that is more of a spear and get outplayed in melee.]
Chambers are close to unusable and have to be reworked.
Stances shouldn't serve a real purpose except aesthetics. They shouldn't influence if you can do chambers or not and they also shouldn't speed up your attacks. Not to mention how players just spin around each other when they fight. You can't even use them properly.
And the list goes on.

Do this thread again, but in singleplayer section, you are in the multiplayer one.

I also had the same problem, 8 out of 9 matches were Khuzait.
I suppose it might've been bad luck, it didn't happen for a while now.

With e1.0.11 there are some marginal improvements. With Medium Settings, 250v250 infantry, It's around 35-40 fps, unless I get close to my troops. It's better, even if a bit, in singleplayer, but the multiplayer appears to run worse now than I remember.

Anyway, in singleplayer, turn shadows down to low, without anything else, or play with no shadows. Also get foliage to very low and terrain quality as well.
It ain't much, but it helps at least a bit.
On desert maps however, it appears as they play with an average of ~15 FPS more than the forest / plain ones. I don't know why, but they are running with close to even 20 fps bonus (50-55 fps in total) in both multiplayer and singleplayer. Again, unless I get close to my troops, then the performance goes as low as 23fps


NOTE: Updated initial post to match recent performance tests.

Murat Türe Is our only savior in these dark times

Murat Türe said:

Thanks for your feedback. Is the campaign and custom battle different regarding this numbers?

Click to expand...

Sorry for responding so late, yes, the campaign has the same performance, same fps as custom battle.

Murat Türe said:

With the 1.0.8 patch, we have fixed many of the memory leak issues in the game. Can you check whether the issue is ongoing? Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

Tried again with 1.0.8 patch. Medium settings, 250v250 infantry on battle, there is a bit of improvement, from 30-35 fps it goes to 40 from time to time, so i gained an average of 5 fps.

However, I have also done the tests on Very High and found that I get 25-30fps, so there is only a difference of 5 fps between the two.
You might be on the right track, maybe look into what causes more CPU usage? Regarding to troop pathfinding, maybe? How many commands the AI does on an individual level and how many are necessary, etc?

Frostic said:

I have in fact done it with graphics at max and at lowest presets (so yea dynamyic shadows turned on and off) and only got 1 fps more.



This proves my point a bit more, I really think Intel CPU's are underpreforming for no apparent reason. Thank you for the info.

Click to expand...

Same. Also, one of the reasons Intel's CPUs underperform could be not because the game is at fault in all regards, but because the design of their processors is utter **** compared to AMD at this stage. they have recycled their same architecture in a lot of places and used plenty of tricks in order to get more performance in game. Which in the long run is not a good idea anyway. Just a fun fact, you can do some more research yourself on the matter technology wise on that, but besides that, yes, the game looks like it also has a lot of problems in handling, calculating and effectively using ANY PROCESSOR, never mind Intel's

Frostic said:

My i7 8700K @3.7 GHz can't handle 500v500 battles, running at a sloppy 20-30 fps. I'm pretty sure that it's a cpu bottleneck because turning graphics down gives me maybe 1 fps more. There seems to be a general issue with Intel proccessors, my guess is that Intel's cores arent utilized properly.

Click to expand...

My friend, I have the same kind of post and a similar i7 processor from Intel as well.
Same problem, and it might as well be because of that.

Game has updated, I tried the same style of benchmarking, do a custom battle, 250-250 troops (infantry), same results. FPS on Medium settings is 30-35fps and on low settings it's ~40.
Well, I still don't understand how others have such better framerates or what is causing it to the portion of people that get my type of performance.

gasznak said:

Aye and I have no issue with your approach.

If you look above I was just answering a guy threatening a dev that "people will refund" cause last few crash fixing patches were bad and hurt his precious performance.

Click to expand...

I know it's not the end of the world, we will get it fixed at some point, finding the cause is the problem

klink.von.stalag13 said:

Well, you must have some clues about what recent changes were done that could use so much CPU!
Clearly, in the current state of things, it really makes the game not pleasing to toy with. I guess if people buy the game now and get this, they might ask for a refund. It is a different situation for all of us that could actually enjoy it before 1.0.4/1.0.5.

Click to expand...

Something happened but it can be fixed. The problem is "what". There is a portion of people who have no issues and can play with 1000 units and 50 fps (which is understandable, considering the scope of it.) but then there are the portion that is like us and for whatever reason can't run with the same framerate but 500 units and even the lowest of settings (i tried) and similar hardware.

gasznak said:

You are just wrong. There wasn't a single patch targeting the startup crash issue while almost all the patches were targeting ingame crashes, ingame balance and ingame performance.

Again, I'll happily trade your 30 fps buggy gameplay for mine week of no gameplay at all.
I also paid 45 euro.

Finally, it's early access so stuff like lack of balance or optimization is to be expected. Even some crashes are expected. If you wait patiently your issue will be resolved as well. Just please stop pointing fingers at patches that are trying to solve much more important issues than yours.

Click to expand...

No.
My job is to give feedback and "point fingers" at the issues because they exist and must be solved.
In a more perfect world, they would have testers as well to help with this, and me complaining wouldn't be required, but since I can give feedback, I will, and I won't just not do it because you don't like it.

"I'll happily trade your 30 fps buggy gameplay for mine week of no gameplay at all. " is irrelevant. The Issue is there, I bring attention to it and that's it, so you can go ahead and move to the Crash Section and point your issue out than sit here and tell me about how I am wrong in the performance section, not the crash one.
I acknowledge your issue exists, but do it in the proper channel then instead of arguing, it's pointless.

gasznak said:

So saying you can't play on 30 fps or you can't play on 60 fps cause there is 35 save limit sounds like being fussy.

Click to expand...

No. Not getting to play the game or running the game very badly is just as detrimental to the enjoyment of the game. There have been many crash related patches but very few performance wise.
Calling people fussy for wanting a polished and optimized product is very naive, considering we have paid 40+ euros. I didn't pay that much just to be able to open the game, but also play it well, especially on my rig.

Murat Türe said:

You can check the core usage through the Details tab in the Task Manager. Right click the game process and choose "Set Affinity". A window will popup which contains check boxes for every core that the game will use.

Click to expand...

I have checked, it uses all the cores, but it runs the same way. Same results. 30-35 fps Medium Settings in 250v250, and with LOW SETTINGS it's ~40 fps.
I believe it's the A.I. calculating what to do, it's not the graphics settings at fault. They do make the fps higher, but marginally.
The game processes appear to cause this bottleneck. There are surely some background things that are lagging the game out for the portion of people like me.