Beta 2.5 & Steam Sale Announcement Discussion

[MS Ryz0n]

This thread is for talking about the Beta patch 2.5 and other announcements from The above announcement

[DogGunn]

This is great to hear. Loving these updates.

[Frotty]

Is the Steam Overlay integration fixed already? (It slows down/freezes the game when opened or showing notifications)

[-Dare Devil/x/]

-Read every word good sir. Feels like most of the information is right on par of what I expected/have been supporting. So props to that. Keep up the good work.

-I noticed one thing you haven't mentioned, which is fps drops significantly when you hit enter to type, or if a friend signs on and it pops up in game.

[GeForce]

After a pretty long delay, I was expecting some features like reduced command-lag, mirror civ option, a real matchmaking system(instead of quick lobby).

Btw what happened to smooth scrolling? It was great in previous beta patch.

[DarK | Adélie]

I read everything: great news, especially the new ranking system. Except for one thing that I suggest to be changed: the maximum selection size for armies.

I suggest to set it to 80 instead of 60. Why?

- Realism: I'm kinda literate with medieval culture and art of war, and armies were subdivized in "montres" aka groups of warriors, each of one united to a sire "chief" with a banner and a warcry. These groups were from one to eighty warriors. So for me, it's cool to follow the historical facts this time, setting 80 for a max cap.
Source: one of the best books about society during the Late Middle Ages...
http://www.amazon.fr/temps-guerre-Cent-Ans-1328-1453/dp/2701133610
(Page 78)

- Fun: it's cool to go with large, doubled armies. For a 300 cap which becames the standard today, 60 seems a bit timid. In an optimal case, a 80 cap selection will allow the player to have 140-150 villagers/trade carts focusing on economy, and two large armies of 70-80 people.
And if the shift from AOC to AOE II HD more than double the population limit (200 to 500), why won't we just double the selection cap?
80 is fun. Bigger armies for more slaying for god sake. Fun yet reasonable. :)

- It's possible. I tested the 2.4 beta several times, and the 200 selection just looked fine in each formation, and even in battles. So a 80 unit selection may be stable and reliable, even in multiplayer games.

Hope you'll like my suggestion. Really looking forward an answer!

[Biz]

There is a minimum time that a ranked game requires before the game will be officially calculated on the leaderboard. 2 minutes for DM and 5 minutes for RM. Games under those time limits are considered pre-maturely completed and are not scored.

you can explore your entire base within 5 minutes. I don't want to see people quitting because they get a bad map.

any legitimate reason for quitting (game is too laggy, scout is stuck, gold is in trees, etc.) should be discoverable much sooner than that

There are two separate ranked leaderboards which encompass the following:
Deathmatch games will be ranked on the DM leaderboard.
Random Map, Turbo RM, King of the Hill, Regicide, Defend the Wonder, and Wonder Race are part of the RM leaderboard.
Any other mode will not be considered for ELO score calculations and is unranked, such as custom scenarios.

this is bad.

RM, DM, and everything else is unranked would be better... the competitive community outside those modes doesn't exist.

DM was never anywhere near as popular, competitive, or representative of AoE2 as Random Map. If anything should have its own mode, it should be RM

[hot_gril]

60 selection size is definitely reasonable.

[hot_gril]

"Any other mode will not be considered for ELO score calculations and is unranked, such as custom scenarios."

YES! Last CBA game I played, there were a couple of jerks worried about their reputation and not having fun. Finally no more of that. What I want now is an unranked option in general.

[Gae Assail]

Good job. Now people can enjoy CS maps for what they are and not worry about people abusing them for a number.

[Sjoerd]

2.3 singleplayer worked fine on one computer, but on the other one I have unbearable fps issues in singplayer also. 2.5 Beta didn't change anything. I have looked everywhere for the solution, but have found none. Performance wise, my computer should work fine. Does anyone have an answer?

[-Dare Devil/x/]

Originally posted by Sjoerd:

2.3 singleplayer worked fine on one computer, but on the other one I have unbearable fps issues in singplayer also. 2.5 Beta didn't change anything. I have looked everywhere for the solution, but have found none. Performance wise, my computer should work fine. Does anyone have an answer?

-Compare your active processes and system specifications, let us know if you find anything.

[Nuke]

yay updates

[TheTechFan]

Is the pixel scrolling (instead of tile-based scrolling) still in this patch? I was looking forward to smoother scrolling once the final patch is released.

[MS Ryz0n]

Originally posted by Sjoerd:

2.3 singleplayer worked fine on one computer, but on the other one I have unbearable fps issues in singplayer also. 2.5 Beta didn't change anything. I have looked everywhere for the solution, but have found none. Performance wise, my computer should work fine. Does anyone have an answer?

If you're getting performance issues in 2.5 beta, please submit feedback through the support system (link in the announcement thread / support subforum). Thanks!


TechFan, you can check it out by opting into the beta or waiting, but yes you should have improved scrolling over 2.3.

[StepS]

yep I'm having a weird performance issue on 1920x1080. If the game is run at 1280x720 (in a window), I get constant 60 FPS, while on 1920x1080 it's constant 30 FPS (my GPU in question is Nvidia geforce GT 730M, together with an intel one).
gonna submit a ticket, don't miss it!