Kubik

Both options was discussed and probably be also implemented, but we need to be careful there to not screw economy by this. So it will not be soon.

that should be both possible not sure which option is easier to implement thou

unfortunately chat channels are hardcoded in the game and we do not have source code for that, so not now.

how this would be better than opening world map and picking map that have number on it? Maybe I just do not see the advantage can you explain a bit?

Fiki I start looking to client bit more and and can say that at least removing things is easy

Display somewhere in the upgrade menu which campaign missions drop the upgrade. planned Have the loot generation algorithm take into account which upgrades the player(s) don't have yet, and only drop those (or strongly favor them). Card rarity should also still factor in. that could break 4p games when one player do not have all rewards and 3 player want gold Remove ability to buy upgrades for currency. and how would PvP players get upgrades? Remove fee for upgrade application. Why? It look like you want to switch Gold for BFP and vice-versa Client do not even allow upgrading for gold if you are interested in that detail. Client do not allow buying boosters for gold. Client do not allow to pay for avatar change with gold. Counter argument to quests why would players play at all if they would have no goal to reach? By looking at your number 1000s players would have every cards in the first week. No one would bother to use AH if they would be able to run map or two to get booster. I do not see advantage in replacing BFP with gold.

Plans are to do things in order So first finish what we have then expand. If you want unconfirmed preview take a look at this thread:

Remember that we are still in Open Strees Test, and many players already left because they do not want to lose their progress. Hawk is against giving any rewards during that phase so there will be no official tournaments until we reach next phase

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fWWdWIM1B4-ouZUUSqRYbaEuAqqGESL7RrMPD3aR4Sw/edit?usp=sharing this is the current loot list. 12p was decided to not give upgrades in the future (if/when they be implemented)

48 by quick buttons plus all cards you have is not enough which units you would like to see?

This way have also positives: (some more important at time of release, but all still valid now) this way it decrease amount of data transferred by 90+%, would your internet connection at the time able to handle 10-100 times more? less data transferred -> smaller chance to disconnect less data transferred -> cost less replay can contain everything and be supper small and it is really about the option. imagine reconnect would be possible and the game would freeze only for the loading times (7 minutes), would you like to wait that long for someone who disconnect? Just imagine how limiting it would be to just wait.

it is not possible because: is is hardcoded once you disconnect all your units are killed, build destroyed, including monuments there is no "game state" for "now" only map and list of steps that players did, based on how fast you can run the replays that fast you would be in theory able to replay match from start to "now". so if we would pause game and wait 2 minutes for you to reconnect, 5 minutes for you to load map and 10 minutes to catch up, would mean that "fellow skylords" would need to wait 17 minutes. I hope I again explained enough why it is not possible.

I am not sure if I BF will survive or crash if the upgrade will be disenchanted while player do not have it. (With EA's code around nothing is easy to implement) How you came to "Ranked pvp 3 000 gold/hour" with 100% lose rate I think I can get over that MrXLink decide the rewards, and now when many have everything I do not think it would change much if we would try add balancing changes, so I ignore gold for now I was just very bored at work, so I was responding to many topics.

did you consider rPvE?, or PvP? I do not like that people "farm" gold at all so if it would be only my decision I would decrease disenchant rewards by about 90% "-Easy to implement." how you come to this conclusion? #1 I read it as double the rewards for cPvE am I correct? if yes, then my answer is no they are too high already. #2 25% gold boost they do not give any gold yet? so you probably mean increase the disenchant rewards on that map. Even thou I generally like the idea of map of the week, I do not like increasing already too high rewards.

should be fixed with next server restart. Thanks for report.

do you know exactly when it was? I can not found any error referring it it, but 4. February 2019 16:13:01 can this be the time of the "Third Error message"?

Can I cote too? And what is the price for the winner?

So after few moths of stress test, did you found a way to "Save Our Community" as topic title suggest?

Server is dedicated machine in France data center with not too old Intel CPUs. It is "only" bit worse than my desktop (no GPU of course) "~3000 ppl at the same time" where you get that number we have best peak under 900 concurrent players. And after many performance fixes we are not limited by server HW. "auto-scaling" never seen anything like this work. Only people claiming it scale "auto-magically" but each of these cases was something that could be handled independently and the "auto-scaling" was just starting new server and load-balancer getting it as next option.

only the "HD textures" are available, because the game do not support choosing this in game, and if low res textures are downloaded the higher resolution ones are ignored it would add much complexity do updater to download two different games (almost), because for some stupid reason they differ by logic, not only the textures. So we would need to support two different versions. It run fine on GPU with 256 MB VRAM (RADEON X1650 PRO) on min details of course So we will support only the version with higher resolution textures.

I have about 59.9 for both minimum and average I do not waste GPU and CPU power on frames that will not end up on screen

Right now we peaking to 400 concurrent players each day. Highest peaks was about month after the stress test start when we was reaching 800 concurrent players.

this is not ping command latency is ping from client to server rounded up to next 100 ms + ping from server to client rounded up to next 100 ms so 200 ms is about the best you can have (with our implementation it can shortly drop to 100 ms). Network latency should be without the second round up, but as you can see it is higher than command latency, so it is incorrect.

I can say it that way, that we do not play to shut down, so you do not need to worry about it, and as long as there will be people interested we will probably be able to keep it running.

for future reference you can use