I think how you handle the instances is different though as I see you can't invite players in the DX12 version? I'm guessing it's because on the Steam they count as different games or something? Taking a wild guess but my suggestion might actually do more bad than good if that is the case. Don't want to mess with the way you are handling things because it seems to be going great so far!!
Liking the game so far but multiplayer team battles (and singleplayer ai vs ai) is incredibly frustrating in that we can't select where we start. I'd quite like to reduce the 1/10 chance of teams working on Setons.
The devs are currently massively against unit icons from what I gather, which I can see the pros and cons for. They want to have the player view a massive battle from a high up vantage and see the individual mass of armies colliding instead of watching dots flicker out of existence. However I will admit it it horrendous trying to even differentiate between your own units let alone make an accurate assessment of an enemies composition. Personally I think the minimap should show where higher co
When the game is started from Steam an option appears "Play Ashes" or "Launch DX12 Version", I think a more consistent options would be "Play Ashes(DX11)" and "Play Ashes (DX12)", just a minor thought.
Hi, I've not currently bought the game but I've been very interested in it since it's announcement. I was wondering how the strategic choices between expanding resource building or building a stronger army affects the game-play. For instance in FA it was whether to rush eco or focus on a more guerrilla game play, from the videos I've seen so far of Ashes I'm not seeing that same early game strategic diversity, it seems to be cap some resources and ex
AshesoftheSingularity Forums