Can we just go back to an older version with less lag?

[nightShadow]

I would rather the game be unbalanced rather than unplayable.

[Moo]

They are working on it, have patience. :)

[NoWaterJustIce]

I dont think there is anything wrong... i have heard people complain but i have experienced less and less lag as some of the coding has been fixed. If there is lag 95% of the time its because someone in the game is trying to play with a wooden computer or wooden internets, not the games fault. Plus the changes are soo much fun :D

[Hogwarts]

I there there is an on going issue with lag period. Not just in AOS but all blizzard games. But yes I do think AOS has some independent lag it self.

[NoWaterJustIce]

Whatever the lag situation is, it used to be much worse

[Darkr]

Main reason for lag is the game does too many calculations at once.

Some of the old coding has some flaws, like not needed calculations that can be assigned to another variable.

There are also items that are unused in the game that are in the code, removing them would help too.

I myself havn't seen much lag, probably because I have a beast PC.

It all comes down to your computer, as most people have average computers, that were good with the old amount of calculations.

So as the data content rises= more calculations. If you had a computer with no limits there would be lag.

[Wrath]

There are also items that are unused in the game that are in the code, removing them would help too.

 

Any unused content is just that - unused - and so doesn't contribute any additional calculations.

[EterNity]

Thanks Wrath for clear things up.

 

If you don't know what you are talking about, bast not talking at all. It does nothing but fuel the rumors and makes the situation worse.

 

This is the same reason why online resources are not trusted because you have idiots talking over those who never bother to post because the majority of people are basically stupid or uninformed.

[Darkr]

Thanks for the correction Wrath.

Thought it was used because the 'int' create variables, so I thought that that might be a little overload.

It would take very long time to efficiently script the code so that every single line was as short as possible, and it would probably take an effect at the quality of the game.

There are many things that can be done that don't require so much work to be done. Like re-scripting something to make it more memory-efficient.

[Hogwarts]

Thanks for illuminating us Wrath.

[Wrath]

Thanks for the correction Wrath.

Thought it was used because the 'int' create variables, so I thought that that might be a little overload.

It would take very long time to efficiently script the code so that every single line was as short as possible, and it would probably take an effect at the quality of the game.

There are many things that can be done that don't require so much work to be done. Like re-scripting something to make it more memory-efficient.

 

There's definitely a lot that can be done to make the game's script more efficient. But recent changes have shown us that the inefficiencies are actually coming from the data editor (the implementations of items and abilities), not the script.

 

And as far as efficient script goes - it actually rarely has anything to do with how succinct the code is. Let me give an example, with code that just loops over each player and performs some operation on them:

 

 

Average Implementation - Easiest to implement, average efficiency:

foreach(player in players)
{
operate(player);
}

 

Most Efficient Implementation - Worst to maintain, least modular

operate(player 1);
operate(player 2);
operate(player 3);
...

 

Most Succint Implementation - Easiest to maintain, most modular, hardest to implement

playerGroupIterate(allPlayers, operator);


Assumes you have elsewhere defined this for use across your application:

void playerGroupIterate(playergroup pg, <playerOperator> operator)
{
for(player in pg)
{
operator(player);
}
}

 

 

The third style, the one I use, is actually the least efficient - using both an additional function call, a for loop, and a function pointer. But it's the fastest way to write code and the loss of efficiency is negligible.

[Darkr]

So, I suspect the bottom line is that it'll take some time to fix the lag.

The way the map editor organises everything, so to fix every single flaw you'd either have to write it all yourself, which is rather impossible, or edit the GalaxyScript.galaxy in the most efficient and a way that the editor will understand.

 

But that's talking about something waaay too complex, as you said it just needs to be rescripted in the editor.