Hm, well for Edge that seems to be Best. Which basically leaves Edge (unresponsive). Edge is still a bit laggy after setting FPS to 30. Bet this is Edge being not the best browser at work here. For the other browsers I have tried Unity is faster the Flash.

Edited 11/13/2017 22:22:21

I thought there was a download of Unity for Linux -- was that only for the beta?

I thought there was a download of Unity for Linux -- was that only for the beta?

There's a link in the first post for Windows/Mac/Linux downloads. But those are still member-only, since they don't have ads.

Why are the 32 bit versions the ones you are linking to by default?

Virtually no one uses a 32 bit OS. The 64 bit is faster, more responsive, and isn't going to run out of memory on big maps.

Why are the 32 bit versions the ones you are linking to by default?

Because it runs on every computer. The 64 bit version only runs on 64 bit versions of Windows, the 32 bit version runs on both.

The 64 bit is faster, more responsive, and isn't going to run out of memory on big maps.

Based on my tests, the 32 and 64 bit versions run at the exact same speed. Do you see a speed difference?

Have you actually had the 32 bit version run out of memory? I've never heard of anyone hitting the 2gb memory limit in the 32 bit version of the app. If you have, I'd love to hear what you're doing.

You've had people report running out of memory before, it's how I knew there was a 64 bit version - you recommended it to them at the time as a fix to their issue.

I'm aware that 64 bit versions of programs do not run on 32 bit OS's, that's fine, no one uses 32 bit OS's. The last OS that was commonly shipped in a 32 bit variant was XP.
It's also not hard to list both 64 and 32 bit versions.

Edited 11/13/2017 22:55:15

@Nauz: I think this StackOverflow post might counter some of your reasoning: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41497783/how-common-are-32-bit-windows-installations-as-of-now

To quote:

Unless your application really needs more than 2GiB of memory space, or gains a significant benefit from the new and faster x64 operations, there's no need to move away from building for 32-bit x86, given x64's 100% backwards-compatibility
...

If you're writing games then take a look at the regularly-updated Steam Hardware Survey - http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ - which (as of 2017-01-05) reports 87.6% of users are running a 64-bit build of Windows - giving only 12.4% on 32-bit Windows, though it doesn't say what percentage of 32-bit Windows users are actually running on x64-capable hardware. But gamers on Steam tend to be in the "computer enthusiast" segment, who will run more recent hardware so usage of 64-bit hardware and OS installs will not be representative of all computer users everywhere.
...

The percentage of users on 64-bit OS systems will also differ geographically - I expect a higher proportion of 32-bit OS users in "emerging markets" that would have a wider use of older (especially imported second-hand) machines than in more developed economies.

It makes sense for 32-bit to be the default distribution.

You've had people report running out of memory before

There was a memory leak bug. It's since been fixed, so it shouldn't happen again.

The last OS that was commonly shipped in a 32 bit variant was XP.

No way, all versions of Windows even up through Windows 10 support 32 bit versions. It's pretty common on any PC that ships with less than 4gb of ram.

no one uses 32 bit OS's

Source? I haven't seen any stats on this, but I would suspect that at least 15% of Windows PCs are still running a 32 bit OS.

Performance Updates by me

Unity Desktop Client is great, the best way to play the game imo.
Unity Mobile Client continues to be impossible for me to use, but my phone is currently really bad (dropped my old phone, now relying on a $50 one.
Chrome runs terrible. Constant lag for me.
Opera runs flawlessly.
About to try Firefox and Edge

Edited 11/13/2017 23:07:33

Chrome runs terrible

@Fizzy, is there a way on the unity client to not auto zoom when watching/skipping turns in the history? I don't want it to zoom, I want to watch the whole map. In the browser version it doesn't auto zoom, but in the client it seems to. Any setting available to switch this off?

This sucks! WarLight is not a shoot'em up, fancy graphics game. I can see no worthwhile changes!

BENCH TEST BENCH TEST BENCH TEST BENCH TEST!!!!!!

Fizer, come on man. How do you release this UI heavy game interface without testing it first? I feel like you have dragged me back to the 1990's gaming experience in both speed and graphics quality.

Plus you failed to fix the overlay problem during "show all" moves mode. AND now I can no longer click a territory to see how many armies are left.

This new UI is a complete flop. If I didn't have several games that I am borderline winning I would quit right now. As it stands, I plan to stop playing as those games end unless conditions improve...

Sorry if it's been asked before, but are we/will we be able to use the Bank Duration and Bank Percentage settings when creating games? I can't find them, only initial banked time.

Will there still be alpha/beta testing for members?

I have a riddle for you guys: guess what the fuck is going on in these 2 pictures.
Hint: on the second game, there was no player with that green colour (and the game wasn't finished at that point)!

Also, the spinner popping out every 2 minutes, making you watch 30 seconds of video and saying only at the end "ooooops you're not eligible to spin ;)" sounds like scam.

Fizzer every day you find new ways to disappoint, that's impressive!

Also, the "rating" on Quickmatch is just +10 every win, no matter who you win against.
That's not a rating system, that's a counter. At this point, you might as well have "# of victories" as rating - but of course this is not indicative of skill level at all

oh, and of course the UI is silly and ridiculous, the colours are a joke

GJ FIZZER!

"Also, the "rating" on Quickmatch is just +10 every win, no matter who you win against.
That's not a rating system, that's a counter. At this point, you might as well have "# of victories" as rating - but of course this is not indicative of skill level at all"

Not true, the rating system is more complicated than that.

He stated on stream that each win is +10, each loss -5, until 400, then each win is +10, and loss is -10.

But even that's clearly not accurate if you look at the rankings he's posted on the forums.

Here's a chunk of players near the bottom of the rankings that Fizzer posted.

Mr. Secretary | 107 | 28
Алексей | 105 | 12
Word Walker | 104 | 28
yummytho | 102 | 16
Space Patrol | 97 | 21
Gus squared | 95 | 13
Love Like Dragons | 90 | 11
dabo1 | 86 | 42
schwarz | 86 | 13
almosttricky | 85 | 11

Almosttricky has 11 wins,

110-85=25/5=5

He's gone 11-5, simple.

schwarz however, 13 wins= 130
130-86=44
44/5=~9

He's probably gone 13-9, but he doesn't have the expected rating for someone who went 13-9, that'd be 85, not 86.

Same idea applies for dabo1.

dabo1 | 86 | 42

He's probably 42-67, but again his rating isn't divisible by 5 so something else is at play.

There's some other factors involved beyond what Fizzer listed.

Edited 11/14/2017 15:24:39

I can't see the pictures Sepiroth