Seeing as how “more than” is a comparative adjective and you only addressed one group of the comparison I was asking for, I don’t see how it “exactly” addressed that. Group 1 for comparison was tames and thralls, group 2 was any other placebable. Your response of “Sure! Each fighter/archer/pet” is group 1. I don’t see any mention of group 2 or how it adds “MORE THAN” group 1 “to the load on the AI system”. Regardless, we all know that empty areas cause less lag than crowded areas, but this is no evidence that thralls/tames cause more lag than filled vaults.
I would agree a release option of the thralls. When they are not more yours, You could even kill them.
1 Like
Their AI would use CPU resources instead of GPU. GPU is probably the biggest bottleneck for most people so static placeables and thralls would probably create the same lag.
1 Like
TYVM @Aaron. I hope I accurately understand that in laymen terms and can logically conclude that tames and thralls are not specifically the issue adding to the load on the AI system any more so than a torch or crafting station. Therefore they hold no more weight for consideration of a cap any more so than a standing torch, foundation, amount of wood or stone you can store, number of chests, etc.
1 Like
Agreed. Unless the devs think its causing problems, they know this game and maybe even Unreal Engine better than any of us. I love this game and I only want to see limits if its absolutely necessary or to introduce an even more insanely awesome feature.
1 Like
Which is why they introduced the hunger system to begin with. They touched on that during the dev stream discussing the removal of it.
1 Like
Wouldn’t make much sense to decay structures and leave tames/thralls. Hunger was a decay mechanic in a different form and they are moving away from that and linking to decay with base. This way you don’t have a base vanish and leave fully stocked thralls for 2 months after
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.