Beta Patch Notes e1.6.3

Users who are viewing this thread

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
Sure though I imagine a percentage as high as 10% in player battles could significantly impact the overall simulation over time, given that the player fights in many battles. Not saying that's bad but something to take into account. I'll bring it up.
I’d say let us test it out more before increasing again. You know that many people didn’t like having it up to 10%. I don’t know how I feel about 2% yet.

Maybe it’s best to suggest letting the player have some options and select player battle death rates. You could limit this to sandbox mode only and you wouldn’t have to worry so much about the balance. I’m of the opinion that sandbox mode should be much more customizable and campaign should be the balanced vision that you guys want.

I think this is the only way to make everyone happy
 

Lesbosisles

Knight
Sure though I imagine a percentage as high as 10% in player battles could significantly impact the overall simulation over time, given that the player fights in many battles. Not saying that's bad but something to take into account. I'll bring it up.
Well, the % numbers are something to be looked at and revised via thorough testing, yet, the idea is to split death chances seems a good one to me, hope the team will at least have a look at that :smile:
Maybe it’s best to suggest letting the player have some options and select player battle death rates
Yep, that seems to be an ideal option. Just like we have an option to disable death in battle at all, would be also nice to have an option to raise/decrease the death %. Combined with the idea of splitting the overall death % into death in battle probability and simulated battle death probability it sounds very solid.
 

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
Well, the % numbers are something to be looked at and revised via thorough testing, yet, the idea is to split death chances seems a good one to me, hope the team will at least have a look at that :smile:

Yep, that seems to be an ideal option. Just like we have an option to disable death in battle at all, would be also nice to have an option to raise/decrease the death %. Combined with the idea of splitting the overall death % into death in battle probability and simulated battle death probability it sounds very solid.
100% agree, rates should be split if they aren’t already.
 

caledoni

Sergeant
I’d say let us test it out more before increasing again. You know that many people didn’t like having it up to 10%. I don’t know how I feel about 2% yet.

Maybe it’s best to suggest letting the player have some options and select player battle death rates. You could limit this to sandbox mode only and you wouldn’t have to worry so much about the balance. I’m of the opinion that sandbox mode should be much more customizable and campaign should be the balanced vision that you guys want.

I think this is the only way to make everyone happy
+1
 

Julio-Claudian

Knight at Arms
I’d say let us test it out more before increasing again. You know that many people didn’t like having it up to 10%. I don’t know how I feel about 2% yet.

Maybe it’s best to suggest letting the player have some options and select player battle death rates. You could limit this to sandbox mode only and you wouldn’t have to worry so much about the balance. I’m of the opinion that sandbox mode should be much more customizable and campaign should be the balanced vision that you guys want.

I think this is the only way to make everyone happy
This seems like the most sensible thing to do.
 
I’d say let us test it out more before increasing again. You know that many people didn’t like having it up to 10%. I don’t know how I feel about 2% yet.

Maybe it’s best to suggest letting the player have some options and select player battle death rates. You could limit this to sandbox mode only and you wouldn’t have to worry so much about the balance. I’m of the opinion that sandbox mode should be much more customizable and campaign should be the balanced vision that you guys want.

I think this is the only way to make everyone happy

Agree with all of this.
 

HumanCancer

Banned
Inappropriate behavior
Are we sure that TW actually has a team of developers working on this game and It isn't just one guy trolling us all?

I refuse to believe that 131 employees can be this inefficient.

"Fixed aim for siege weapons" ??? What am I even reading ffs. Just fix the damn sieges and come out with an update "SIEGES FIXED" there it -snip- is. Your fixing the sieges part by part every patch and It's leading nowhere because they are still broken. At this point It's just there so you can write longer patch notes hoping that we will think your actually doing something in that company other then -snip-.

Is there actually somebody who reads this -snip- and is generally excited to play because of the new "features" and "fixed" bugs?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
100% agree, rates should be split if they aren’t already.
They should do this with a lot of settings man, custom game rules are always good
Well, the % numbers are something to be looked at and revised via thorough testing, yet, the idea is to split death chances seems a good one to me, hope the team will at least have a look at that :smile:

Yep, that seems to be an ideal option. Just like we have an option to disable death in battle at all, would be also nice to have an option to raise/decrease the death %. Combined with the idea of splitting the overall death % into death in battle probability and simulated battle death probability it sounds very solid.
Yes, and option would be good because players (ever since death was enabled) have been absolutely complaining that thier faction and everyone around them dies out to fast because of the player involved battles (at 10% chance)! For some it could be enjoyable or even advantageous though, so options are the way to go! I kinda like getting everyone killed, my only qualm is when the game doesn't let me choose to easily hold back certain troops, like in keep fight or siege where it's hard to protect or control certain units/family.
 

Artem1s

Sergeant at Arms
WBVC
I can see a grid overlay, can you? I wish I could post a screenshot but I don't have a imgr account.

The grid is annoying and makes the graphics look chopped up and pixelated for lack of a better word.

Edit- Thanks Piconi

The grid doesn't move which in turn distorts the appearance of whatever is moving in the game.
60beS.jpg
It's really noticeable on metal or shiny objects especially the helmet.
24_x1.jpg

Edit 2- Soooo, I just watched Artems new patch update vid and on the part where he's showing the new helmet and for the whole vid tbh, it looks like he has the grid thing too. I'm now starting to wonder if this has always been in the game? I'm pretty sure this is new and also now I know it's not just me.
There is definitely something wrong with the graphics only present in this patch. They went from crystalline clear perfection to some ugly mush like a blur filter, or constant grid-like motion blur.

Maybe it's because of the change of how particles are handled?

I also do have a Nvidia card but it seems like not everyone is experiencing this issue
 

fragonard

Grandmaster Knight
WB
I have a GTX 1660 super and I don't see this problem. It must be something else or a strange combo of things.
 
Improved the way attribute and focus points are distributed for the AI.
Is this what's going on with this wanderer having everything unassigned? Edit: No I guess not, after recruiting several more none of the others have un spent perks/points, they do have better attributes and fp selection set though.

This is the first one I hired on 1.6.3 so I don't know if they're all like this, but that's an improvement Many players have asked to be able to just choose the perks themselves.!
 
Last edited:
Has anybody noticed any weird behaviour with ranged troops? I've noticed horse archers aiming the opposite way after they get at a certain angle from their targets and sometimes foot troops throw their ranged in the direction they are walking, even if they are facing away from the enemy.
 
Has anybody noticed any weird behaviour with ranged troops? I've noticed horse archers aiming the opposite way after they get at a certain angle from their targets and sometimes foot troops throw their ranged in the direction they are walking, even if they are facing away from the enemy.
Yes. I have noticed and am watching and considering how to report it. It may be they are releasing thier shot instead of re-holstering (or whatever) when they are unable to aim at the enemy, or just some new fun bug. It's very easy to see with HA on fallow me. If you want to report it go ahead and I'll add into the report at some point.
 
Personally, I would prefer the death risk to be separated into two categories: death in battle (when a player participates in a fight) and death in simulated battle (AI vs AI).

The first one should be higher then a pity 2%, I even would've stayed with the previous 10%, but you may lower it down to 7% or something.
The second (AI vs AI) should be lower, since such battles happen more often, so the chance should be lower - about 3-4%.
They could be seperate, yes, but then I think there should be some more logic than percentage.

In won simulations, leaders of the winning side rarely falls while in scenario battles they often falls. This means with the same deathrate across all battles that more "winners" will die in player battles than in AI simulations. your suggestion with considereably higher death-numbers in player battles will amplify this, to a degree where we are quite close to where we came from.
 
Top Bottom