Issue with general selection inside adventure

My first time back to the game since the transfer to the current platform and decided to try an adventure.
Well, what a joke.
Sent a few attacks, something failed. Looks like the troop selection didn't update correctly.
Tried to select a Boris only to have the window for a basic general pop up?!

Set up for next attacks and ensured troops were correctly assigned and sent the generals.
first general didn't actually move, was able to retreat 2nd general, was not able to retreat the 3rd general and then noticed a totally different general was also attacking, and was unable to retreat that general either.

Don't know what you have done with the game but it will be at least another 6 months until I try it again.

Do not talk about "improving performance" when the performance doesn't even meet the performance prior to the platform change.
BB has a lot of fixing to do before doing anything else. I suggest you stick to one game before trying to unleash a new game which is also only half cooked.

Might i suggest reading the many, many, many other post concerning these issues?

The problem is very simple to solve as a player

Only attack with 1 general at a time and do not launch a new general until the old one has returned to the camp

The reality is that that makes for such a slow gameplay that you will quit

Basically, be aware of 3 issues that all in the end have the same root cause that they need to fix but maybe cant fix

1) IF a general is returning to camp, as soon as he lands in the camp, your open general window will redirect to the just landed general (so instead of filling/changing your general you were dealing with, you are refilling the one that just landed but still send the old one youw ere dealing with out thinking it is redone

2) The same happens if a general lands from home island on adventure, as soon as it has fully landed, he becomes the active general and hence you change his troop setup

3) This same problem ALSO occurs when you are sending a general out to attack. If you have selected the general, selected attack mode and moving your cursor to the camp to be attacked AND in that time you have any other general returning to its base camp, HE becomes the active general on your cursor and HE will attack that camp, not the general you selected to do the attack

This "feature" is exclusive to Unity and never appeared in flash type settings so not in the old client either.

If you are aware of it, you can prevent 80% of mishaps by timing new attacks in periods when no generals are due back to land. However, this is a play mode we never had so we all fail at it unless we slow down gameplay by making the gaps between generals returning to base camps bigger and so create extra time to send out attacks without the weird general-hopping that unity does

My biggest question in this is: Is this mechanism intentional from BB/needed in unity so we have to adjust permanently to it or is this a coding issues to be resolved in the long list of bug fixes

To be honest, if this is an intentional change in gameplay (even if due to restrictions in unity) then this will turn me away from the game as it is so counter intuitive and seems to punish players for not following a very weird mechanisn where active windows randomly jump about to various game elements/generals

I hope Bb traffer can give some insight in this and this mechanism as it is one of the biggest peevees people have at the moment (ofc Zone refresh is the biggest, followed by slow slow loading)

I think the jumping generals and zone refresh are linked, in that the system is not capable of updating at the speed we play. The second or two the actual update/refresh takes place often misses things in those seconds and goes backward to the last event, or over writing it.
However, like many I'm getting a little fed up of hearing `we are working on it' yet only small fix's are actually coming through. This is a fundamental part of the game, nothing, I repeat nothing should be fixed until this part is sorted. Doing so is a waste of development time and is just postponing the inevitable.
BB has had over six months of Unity, it should be clear by now if this is indeed fixable. If it is FIX IT, if not swallow your pride and re establish the client.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larili

If it is FIX IT, if not swallow your pride and re establish the client.

---

As they use third party stuff for that which might or might not be supported anymore, this might not be a choice available anymore either. Alas BB just communicates the bare minimum they feel they have to which makes for a lot of misundertsandings and people filling in blanks any way they think fits the bill

a bit more openness won;t hurt BB and actually might make people more understanding of the complexity- Talking in abstracts just goes over our heads

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Qualan

As they use third party stuff for that which might or might not be supported anymore, this might not be a choice available anymore either. Alas BB just communicates the bare minimum they feel they have to which makes for a lot of misundertsandings and people filling in blanks any way they think fits the bill

a bit more openness won;t hurt BB and actually might make people more understanding of the complexity- Talking in abstracts just goes over our heads

---

Hmm not convinced Qualan. The client still works, supported or not. In fact it is working over more platforms than it did when BB used it ... and i recall them saying that `they' were unable to make it work for Mac users ...What confidence does that give us for how they are going to be able to get Unity to work. Is it because the game is not capable of being run properly with Unity? or because they don't have the ability/knowledge/coding skills to get it to work with Unity in house?
For a fundamental dynamic of the game ( adventures ) to be broken for this amount of time since the switch ( let alone the time they were preparing for the switch ) is just unbelievable. We've been told that they needed to work on the back end of the game first and then things would improve quicker ... well we waited, the backend was fixed we were told ... where are all the quick fixes? Not even simple `undefined texts' have been sorted. Event building upgrades still stuck. Buff cool downs still broke. After six weeks between patches we get one or two minor fixes, which as most coders in the community say should take a few hours at most. The change logs are ridiculously disappointing with what they have achieved in six weeks. What they are achieving in six weeks is what they should be doing every week and a major fix ( like the refresh/general jumping) should happen in the six week period. If they were really committed to the game this is the minimum I would expect to see. The fact that we're not seeing it, or anything like it, says they're lying to us and stringing us along. Everytime we ask a direct question we get a lot of words that says nothing and redirects the question. We get `it's complicated' and `we are working on it'. We can understand that, but after six weeks and then another six weeks and then another six weeks, the answer is still `it's complicated and we are working hard to get it fixed' It is No longer believable or credible.
Coincidence that the new Settler game is put out in beta at this time,( When the previous version was shelved last year after the decision to go with Unity for TSO ) I don't think so. Coincidence that they change the studio name and drop Blue Byte for the new game, I don't think so. Will the player base be fooled by their smoke and mirrors, some probably, some will not but will play along, others will not and be less forgiving of the company dishonesty. It will be clear if by Easter event they have not sorted the refresh and adventuring issue they can not and will not be fixing it, no matter how hard they say they `are working on it' Focus will be on the new game, pure and simple. Just remember just because they change the name of the studio doesn't mean the studio staff structure, management and abilities change. Remember how long TSO was in Beta, lets see if Ubisoft Dusseldorf can do better LMAO

The fact client still works doesnt mean that it is supported now or in the long run by the owners of the software. What is clear is, that bb doesnt have any license rights to run it at the moment which is why they can not support it

Is it a monet issue/desision or something else, we do not know- They are staying very silent about details and just state it is not supported

But similar things have happened to other games as well, where playerbase run some stuff that makes a game work or work in unintended ways/platforms. Most of the time they infringe on copyrights/ownership when they do but because it is a player, it is hard to go after them with any succes by a company. Individuals have notoriously empty pockets at the end of a long lawsuit so there is not a whole lot of benefit in going after them so a lot of companies do not bother if the impact is limited.

Now ubisoft on the other hand.... if they infringe on peoples rights/software, can and will be hit by the man with the hammer and will have to pay- so for them it is not worth it in most cases (including TSO) So what players do, can be done by BB as well, but it makes no economic sense for them to do so - for whatever reason. As they do not tell us the why in any detail, we do not really know if there might have been a very expensive piece of software or rights to transpose client to mac or just laziness from programmers or incompetence or lack of the right skillset- it can be any or all of them or any weird combination of those and other factors

As to bug fixes: they chose a dangerous route, 1:1 transfer between platforms- when it works it is great, when it doesnt work, in some cases it can be terminal or they need to rething game fundamentals (and they need to be tested [the thing they are not good at] extensively to see there are no unintended consequences in other places int heir software [which seem to pop up with some regularity, like the building cooldown thing i guess]

And the new title- i never thought they would completely can it, more they pulled it and would see what reworks could achieve before rescheduling the game- whatever went wrong (and something did as they hired the same party to fix it as they hired to fix TSO] made em pull the game till thy could get a grip on it and maybe have a timeline to launch- Totally writing it off would be a big write off - which any company hates doing