Beta Patch Notes e1.5.8

Currently viewing this thread:

onter

Recruit
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
 

andyinuk

Recruit
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
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.

It's not the worst thing in the world since my party is over 100 men now. It make levelling troops really easy though. And if any of the village want manual labours, I would be very rich in no time. As it is, I could probably grind an hour or so and able to sell the loots to buy a few workshops.
 

emrozdemir

Developer
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.
 

IceNoVa

The Kaiser
Global Moderator
WBM&BVCNWWF&S
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.
 

emrozdemir

Developer
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.

A toggle for slider and dropdown for the same options is not planned but scaling the option values according to current hardware is planned. In either case the current max 1000 will always be selectable from the options.
 

AnandaShanti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Ye, the slider was perfect. Now you have less options. How is this better? Just a random change for the worse.
Yeah a full slider was better. I often want a fine adjustment to have 'just enough' of Monchung's 400 tribal horsemen ta once.

Off topic, many iconic games were made by devs who didn't really play videos games, because nobody had made them yet!
 

Lord Irontoe

Master Knight
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.
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 like
 

emrozdemir

Developer
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
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?
 

Lord Irontoe

Master Knight
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?
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.
 

emrozdemir

Developer
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 like I said, by that implementation, 600 to 1000 would be max, and 601 and 1000 are very different quality/performance wise.
 

danEN

Knight
WBM&BWF&SNWVC
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.
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.
 

emrozdemir

Developer
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.
I can certainly bring up adding 1 or more divisions between 600-1000. I'll bring it up internally.
 

Lord Irontoe

Master Knight
But like I said, by that implementation, 600 to 1000 would be max, and 601 and 1000 are very different quality/performance wise.
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. You could even add a warning saying something like "Extremely high battle sizes may seriously impact your performance. Use at your own risk." Players will understand that setting it to 900 will have more impact than 601
 
Last edited:

emrozdemir

Developer
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
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.

Console performance boys.
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?
 

Lord Irontoe

Master Knight
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.
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.

There are some Warband mods that allow bigger battle sizes that handle this very simply. They just have a slider and if you go over a set number, like 300 or something, a warning text appears saying it may affect performance. That's all that you really need
 

AndrewArt

Sergeant at Arms
Another issue with the leveling system comes straight out of character creation... I want to play an Aserai trader, but I don't want my character to have charm because leveling up a skill makes other skills level slower of course, but I just can't avoid it... some skills are stacked with the skills you actually want in the same attribute group, and you can't get rid of them. I wish I could just lock the charm skill for it to never level at all, and to get a bonus learning rate in the other 2 skills by doing so. That would be great honestly. God, I wish so much to play this game a LOT but this leveling and the skills just steal my enjoyment... I have over 900 hours in the game now, and I still feel like I can enjoy it so much more, please don't forget about improving this whole system... I've been waiting for so long, and I hope the next patches it will be better... even some small improvements. I think the "lower exp earned after level-up" definitely needs to go. The issue that I just mentioned wouldn't be as big of a deal without that. I will wait patiently, but I want to play this game so damn bad for a long playthrough... these past few days I kept resetting my playthroughs because I'm always hitting the same wall like in the past: it becomes unenjoyable since it's so slow to level later-on... Will be here praying for improvements, thank you developers for continuing to work on the game
 
Top Bottom