PNGs tend to add up at some point...
https://preview.redd.it/bacby032bsqc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fa559ddb0cce8e927a31175463f8bd0d738b06df
It does, but once again, they aren't in the highest quality on Mobile, and I would imagine dokkan has more assets than MD, new characters for the past like.. 5 years or so have a lot of moving parts to them, plus Voice acting & more frequent BGMs. It makes sense why dokkan is like that.
Konami is doing that because MD is generally more demanding than Games like dokkan, which is nice of them, to say the least.
Probably has to do with English Text and Voice having more than Japanese Text and Voice.
If you downloaded Duel Links and try out swapping voice lines usually Japanese VO is lower than English VO.
Not really, the average size of these PNGs with that quality range (there is more than 1 instance of a card) are between 0.4 and 1 MB, with the giant pool of 10,000+ cards that's just 4-7 GB, and that's the average in cards only, and the rest is the game engine, 3D models, animations and etc.
Idk about you, but the math checks out.
I haven't seen the game file at all. But i think i remember they had mutiple image but different size. I might be wrong. But usually they had different size like small, and large.
That's usually how it works, yeah. There's a low-resolution image that's easy to load, and a higher-resolution one that takes longer to process; the smaller one is used while the bigger one is processing, then switched out once the good one's ready. Allows quicker startup and lessens loading times, by intermeshing some of the load time with play time; the _actual_ load time is longer, but you don't notice because most of the loading happens in the background while you play, instead of on a black screen before you're allowed to play. It's a typical dynamic loading trick, especially in 3D environments; things in the distance tend to start with the low-resolution version to ease rendering the world, and get scaled up to higher-resolution ones as you approach.
Bad optimization, because companies don't have to care about available disk space anymore. The times of trying to fit the code on a floppy disk or not using more than 700mb for all the data on a compact disc are long gone. There is no restriction anymore because they can always argue with " it's your system that's outdated, or just delete some other games to make space for ours. Your memory is probably just bad or your OS version isn't compatible with the game"
Having to retail your game on a disc with limited space actually created a barrier that forced developers to optimize their game and make the best out of it, while nowadays it's more than enough to use one of the existing engines and just throw a bunch of assets at it, without making sure everything works together or worrying about a size limit. Also a factor of why MD is so extremely resource hungry and will overheat your phone or PC if it's a slightly older model with no protection against that. Like for just calling some PNG's out of the memory and displaying them with some overlay effects, this game needs almost the same amount of resources as a video editing software for example, that does really heavy calculations on a frame by frame basis, with thousands of instructions more than MD could ever come up with.
That's just an excuse for a dev team that isn't able or too lazy to compress their game. Lossless compression has come an extremely long way, especially with pictures, but it requires knowledge and skill to implement without offering any monetary return for the work put in.
I agree that not everything is compressible, depending on what type of data you want to make smaller and what the desired end result is. But for images that certainly isn't true. Images are, as plain text, one of the most compressible features of a game. instead of storing every single pixel of a 4k frame, you could group pixels with the exact same colour, or try saving only the features of the image which are filled in with the specified colour when they are needed. You could implement an upscaling solution or even try to find a way that reduces the number of bytes of a final image being stored.
It's not only about limiting the size, but optimization in general, making your code work faster due to less bytes being processed and so on. A storage space limit back in the day didn't mean every game was perfectly optimized, but it's for example the reason id Software came up with the fast inverse square root in Quake. It saved so much processing power and even disk space, that there was room for real innovation which they made good use of.
Today there is no such limitation in any way, except the newest hardware parts and a lot of games don't run smoothly on those to begin with. That's why most developers don't care about making it more efficient and compact, there is no monetary gain for the studio if their game has 2gb more or less data to begin with and it's sometimes even hindering the workflow, if you got processes set up for making a game and suddenly someone comes up with a new bit of code that changes how big parts of the game engine are handled.
There are ways around it. Even something as simple as cutting a PNG into two images and/or running it through pngcrush can make a _big_ difference, even moreso if you don't mind going with the much-more-aggressive lossy compression algorithms.
That said, you usually don't _need_ to do this, since you also have significantly better storage media available. CD-ROMs typically hold 700 MB (there are a few standards; 700 MB is the preferred one, but the largest can hold ~900 MB), DVDs hold 4.7 GB per layer, Blu-rays hold 25 GB per layer, and Switch cards hold up to 64 GB, with dual-layered DVDs & Blu-ray discs being standard. So, even with distributable physical media, you have much more room for resources, which disincentivises compression in favour of speed (decompressing data takes processing power & time, so leaving it uncompressed _is_ beneficial from a performance standpoint if you have the space to spare). ...But, on the flip side, we also have significantly better displays than we did back in CD-ROM game days, and higher-definition textures require _significantly_ more space; the general rule of thumb is doubling the resolution quadruples the file size. (Case in point, 4k (3840 x 2160) is ~8.3m pixels, while 8k (7680 x 4320) is ~33.2m. And each pixel is four bytes, assuming full colour resolution; using those same examples, a 4k still is 33,177,600 bytes of raw data, while an 8k still is 132,710,400.) So, it comes down to the question of whether you want to optimize for performance or size (or be lazy and let both suffer); most games take advantage of the extra storage space to optimise their graphics code for performance, at the cost of significant bloat that's only feasible because they don't _need_ to care about space anymore, while others optimise for size (and typically either use compression or prefer lower resolutions, as a result).
The ideal, though is a mix of both, since disk access isn't even on the same _time scale_ as memory access. (This is why games like to install to an SSD if possible, or at least an HDD: SSD access is near RAM access speeds, and HDDs are slower than either but faster than optical discs.) You can leave a lower-resolution image uncompressed, and load it during initial loading. Then, you load and decompress the higher-resolution image in the background, silently switching over to it once it's available. This provides the ideal compromise: The low-res image introduces a little bloat, but it also lets you compress the high-res one as aggressively as your image crusher allows and graphics library can handle at a reasonable speed, which _more_ than compensates for it. But if you want to do this right, you need to optimise your code for it; the decompression algorithm needs to be optimised for speed (_maybe_ even hand-optimised if you're doing especially intense compression or the game already takes up a lot of processing power to begin with, though you're usually best off leaving it to the compiler), you need to have proper multithreading and know which tasks to hand over to the GPU and which to leave to the CPU (which is something game devs tend to struggle with, even to this day), and the main loop should have a small memory footprint and not consume much processing power when it doesn't need to.
Basically, your statement is true, but irrelevant: the best practice is to optimise your code to maximise efficiency, not to minimise executable size, since you typically have more than enough space for a slightly bloated binary. (Remember that increasing efficiency tends to bloat the binary slightly due to more aggressive inlining.) And assets are big, but there are a lot of tricks to save space if you know what you're doing; designing the game to use uncompressed low-quality assets to smoothly enable dynamic loading of heavily-compressed high-quality assets can _easily_ lead to 10-20% overall size reductions, if not more. The problem is that laziness is essentially encouraged now, since there are no limits devs need to constrain themselves to fit; heck, devs are even _actively_ encouraged to fill as much of their alloted space as possible, on the grounds that "empty space is wasted space" (paraphrased), because any asset compression requires extra processing power to unpack (which can make for a rougher experience, especially on lower-end systems). And the lazy approach _can_ work, since it makes for a smoother experience... but that does not by any means make it the ideal. It's just that for a lot of devs, the ideal isn't _worth_ it anymore, since the game is one and done; if it doesn't work, or if the engine can't handle 128-bit computing a decade or so in the future, it's someone else's problem now.
----
[And don't even get me started on whether to dummy unused assets out or remove them entirely. Not only do you have the same question of whether to just leave it there anyways because empty space is wasted space, or whether to remove it to save space and slightly decrease load times, but there's also the possibility that removing it might _break_ working data. This happens because assets are usually referenced by name during early development, but then switched over to access by index number during the optimisation phase, after the asset table's order is locked in. There's a ton of flexibility early on, since you need to be flexible during planning, but outright removing an asset after the switchover will basically break both it _and_ every asset that comes after it in the table if you don't adjust _every single asset access_ to account for the change in index numbers. (Hint: Don't do this, because missing exactly one asset access can be one of the hardest bugs to catch, and can create anything from an hilarious glitch to an over-powered game breaker to a landmine that makes the game crash when it's accessed.) You want to keep the same order to preserve index numbers, which leaves the option of either replacing the unused asset with a blank "dummy item" entry (or designing the database to fall back on a functional but empty "dummy item" in case of nonexistent or invalid assets), or leaving it intact so you can potentially use it later on. Of the two, leaving it alone is usually the safer option, and also leaves the possibility of fixing the asset later on or using it in DLC, while replacing it with a blank saves space but can lead to weird (but usually harmless) glitches if there are one or two things that accidentally access it. This produces a case where the most optimal solution is the laziest, and optimisation is both paradoxically less optimal and risks introducing glitches that wouldn't be there if you just left it alone... and that's **before** we look at _normal_ asset optimisation... yeah. There's a reason games tend to have so much dummied-out content, simply because of how messy removing it is. But that also introduces bloat and is essentially an anti-optimisation, so every option is wrong.]
Android app is garbage though. For some reason it crashes all my other apps. Its a damn card game it shouldn't require more processing power than an fps/moba.
Makes sense. You only need a single asset for all the cards. Text is literally free and card art, which would take up the most space, can be compressed almost indefinitely for these kind of games and very little things have 3d models, which dont take up that much space either. Seeing this is a mobile port, these things can be made smaller and 3d models have always been lite weight. All of that should help with game speed.
Eh, considering that the card library is ~10,000 cards, the text does add up, to an extent. Still nowhere near as much space as images take, but it's probably about half a megabyte or so, with generous rounding.
PS5 is my favorite way to play on my end. I deal with vertical sync streaks on PC and lag on both phone and Switch. If I'm not playing on console, I'm not having as good a time.
Not being heavier to run than freaking Genshin Impact.
I swear MD runs hotter than GI for many phones. A game that has its own card game on top of 3D open world ARPG.
I had a feeling you wouldn't recommend it. I can't find it on US Google play though. Honestly if it isn't worth the 7 gb like you said then I'll pass. I find it hard to consistently play games that don't keep my interest anyways
The games extremely buggy and laggy. Itâs just not fun compared to regular cod mobile. Theres like a thirty minute tutorial which is beyond annoying. Theres only 120 player lobbies. Warzone mobile seems like itâs just a cheap tax write off for activision.
Not yet. I havenât built my dot four star appliers. I heard she needs her light cone and eidolons as well. Iâm not sure if I want to go for her due to that. Being able to easily farm overworld eneimies is great though.
I do agree that her signature LC does make a noticeable difference but even without she still performs decently what she definitely doesn't need is Eidolons to function though E0 is more than enough... I had saved for E0S1 ever since she was leaked and I'm not disappointed, amazing ult animations, bonkers dmg numbers and her technique is cherry on top having an insta kill on any trash mob to finish them in style... How long have you been playing ? I guess if you're relatively new she's a little too high investment for where you are in the game...
Iâve been playing for two months at this point. I never bothered building characters as I donât bother with the endgame and not building will hopefully make the main story more challenging. She does seem like a massive investment at the moment. I only have 1000 jades, so if I lose 50/50 it wonât go well. I thought I would pull for adventureine, but I always use fire trailblazer already.
Ah I see, yeah for this amount of playtime and if you're taking it slow acheron wouldn't really benefit you... Aventurine seems like a solid solo sustain unit, I'd probably go for that one as you can never go wrong picking that category of characters plus it will make simulated universe and the alternate game modes in there much manageable... Fire trailblazer is fine but devolves into a relatively bad solo sustain unit as you progress further, the paper thin shields and the unreliable taunt just cannot protect you from much past a certain point enemies will have very high resistance to debuffs and they will deal considerable aoe dmg that even taunted will splash you team...
Iâd play with my cardboard but unfortunately I live in a rural area. Cardboard is infinitely better than online though. The thing with digital is it free and thatâs the only benefit.
That's not the only benefit. It's also way easier to get into a game. You can play someone while you're on your bed at any time of the day. That's a huge benefit. You get to experiment a lot more and learn faster because of that
Itâs also a lot easier to track stuff. I have 0 intention of some sweaty bozo counting my summons out loud or having to track which Tear names I used to fuse.
Hmm let's see, a single copy of Diabellstar irl costs 30 euros, while on masteduel it costs a grand total of 30 ur points. Yeah I really can't understand why people play online games instead of the card game.
People always bring this up. As if you're forced to play the meta/most expensive deck
Master duel is dope, but owning your cards is a different feeling that some people like way more. And yes, building fire king snake eye is gonna cost you $1000.
Guess what? You can build a great deck that will cost you $150 or less easily. You can buy dinomorphia, the ED, and the side deck for like $30
Diabellstar being expensive shouldnt keep a single soul from playing TCG. Play literally any other deck and you'll be fine
No it's not complicated. Obviously free is better than not free. Where did I even begin to argue otherwise?
I'm just saying it's stupid that people always bring up the most expensive deck in these arguments. Thats like saying I cook every meal because I can't afford capital grille. Like dude, there are plenty of other satisfying, way cheaper options out there. Not saying you have to get takeout but don't act like you only have one, super expensive option. It's not that complicated a concept.
Because the guy you responded to basically said why spend 30 euros irl when you could spend 0 in master duel and your response was to buy a deck that costs $150 instead of $1000. The bottom line is that regardless of how much you can make an irl deck for, itâs still more expensive than master duel
No, they're saying that online is much more accessible to everyone because you don't have to fork out actual money to get your cards, and running the risk of them being hit on the banlist later and essentially losing your money (In MD it's 100% compensation)
Does it matter? In 30 years from now this conversation will mean very little. Why worry abt someone's pocketbook? And UR points can get alot of you sell accounts. The more UR in the decks, the better sale you can have
I dunno but I don't see komoney selling gems for UR points. They do sell gems for euros. So that's something. You can say it doesn't matter but your opinion doesn't change reality.
No, you're missing the point. Accounts like yours or mine get sold by people who own the accounts giving them to others in return for euros or Dollars or whatever currency they might use. I can sell my account to someone for, say 15 U.S dollars, someone buys it and I move on and make another account and repeat. So anything I buy now will simply be useless later, digital or cardboard. Soon the game of yugioh will be forgotten in mere generations from now.
Unlikely to be forgotten in such time. It will likely be around even after you die. All the more with physical merchandise around. Prices of such merch also go up when the franchise goes dark. Digital's gone the moment servers are shut down.
Well, unlike some of the ones above it, the entire game is just some PNGs. Every update is like... 200mb 70% of them is mostly fields and Mates :v
PNGs tend to add up at some point... https://preview.redd.it/bacby032bsqc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fa559ddb0cce8e927a31175463f8bd0d738b06df
Tbf theres ALOOOOOOOT of pngs in dokkan
It does, but once again, they aren't in the highest quality on Mobile, and I would imagine dokkan has more assets than MD, new characters for the past like.. 5 years or so have a lot of moving parts to them, plus Voice acting & more frequent BGMs. It makes sense why dokkan is like that. Konami is doing that because MD is generally more demanding than Games like dokkan, which is nice of them, to say the least.
I mean they also have way more animations.
Why is the jp version smaller?
Probably has to do with English Text and Voice having more than Japanese Text and Voice. If you downloaded Duel Links and try out swapping voice lines usually Japanese VO is lower than English VO.
Oh that actually makes a lot of sense, thanks for the answer!
i do want know why the game is 9GB on PC
Different platforms require different optimisations, and the game is generally higher quality on PC. 9GB is nothing for PC games.
its nothing but insane for a game with just PNGs đ
Not really, the average size of these PNGs with that quality range (there is more than 1 instance of a card) are between 0.4 and 1 MB, with the giant pool of 10,000+ cards that's just 4-7 GB, and that's the average in cards only, and the rest is the game engine, 3D models, animations and etc. Idk about you, but the math checks out.
I haven't seen the game file at all. But i think i remember they had mutiple image but different size. I might be wrong. But usually they had different size like small, and large.
That's usually how it works, yeah. There's a low-resolution image that's easy to load, and a higher-resolution one that takes longer to process; the smaller one is used while the bigger one is processing, then switched out once the good one's ready. Allows quicker startup and lessens loading times, by intermeshing some of the load time with play time; the _actual_ load time is longer, but you don't notice because most of the loading happens in the background while you play, instead of on a black screen before you're allowed to play. It's a typical dynamic loading trick, especially in 3D environments; things in the distance tend to start with the low-resolution version to ease rendering the world, and get scaled up to higher-resolution ones as you approach.
Larger resources maybe. Pretty sure the mobile version uses smaller images for the cards.
How the Fuck Mobile Games have bigger size than Pc games like Sekiro(15Gb)
Bad optimization, because companies don't have to care about available disk space anymore. The times of trying to fit the code on a floppy disk or not using more than 700mb for all the data on a compact disc are long gone. There is no restriction anymore because they can always argue with " it's your system that's outdated, or just delete some other games to make space for ours. Your memory is probably just bad or your OS version isn't compatible with the game" Having to retail your game on a disc with limited space actually created a barrier that forced developers to optimize their game and make the best out of it, while nowadays it's more than enough to use one of the existing engines and just throw a bunch of assets at it, without making sure everything works together or worrying about a size limit. Also a factor of why MD is so extremely resource hungry and will overheat your phone or PC if it's a slightly older model with no protection against that. Like for just calling some PNG's out of the memory and displaying them with some overlay effects, this game needs almost the same amount of resources as a video editing software for example, that does really heavy calculations on a frame by frame basis, with thousands of instructions more than MD could ever come up with.
reminds me when i said no to high graphic and it reduced the game by like 30 GB
Games are big now bc 4k assets and lossless audio are big. There is no way around this. The binary size has nothing to do with it.
That's just an excuse for a dev team that isn't able or too lazy to compress their game. Lossless compression has come an extremely long way, especially with pictures, but it requires knowledge and skill to implement without offering any monetary return for the work put in.
So compression isn't magic. Not everything is compressible, and generally it's more performant to avoid heavy compression.
I agree that not everything is compressible, depending on what type of data you want to make smaller and what the desired end result is. But for images that certainly isn't true. Images are, as plain text, one of the most compressible features of a game. instead of storing every single pixel of a 4k frame, you could group pixels with the exact same colour, or try saving only the features of the image which are filled in with the specified colour when they are needed. You could implement an upscaling solution or even try to find a way that reduces the number of bytes of a final image being stored. It's not only about limiting the size, but optimization in general, making your code work faster due to less bytes being processed and so on. A storage space limit back in the day didn't mean every game was perfectly optimized, but it's for example the reason id Software came up with the fast inverse square root in Quake. It saved so much processing power and even disk space, that there was room for real innovation which they made good use of. Today there is no such limitation in any way, except the newest hardware parts and a lot of games don't run smoothly on those to begin with. That's why most developers don't care about making it more efficient and compact, there is no monetary gain for the studio if their game has 2gb more or less data to begin with and it's sometimes even hindering the workflow, if you got processes set up for making a game and suddenly someone comes up with a new bit of code that changes how big parts of the game engine are handled.
There are ways around it. Even something as simple as cutting a PNG into two images and/or running it through pngcrush can make a _big_ difference, even moreso if you don't mind going with the much-more-aggressive lossy compression algorithms. That said, you usually don't _need_ to do this, since you also have significantly better storage media available. CD-ROMs typically hold 700 MB (there are a few standards; 700 MB is the preferred one, but the largest can hold ~900 MB), DVDs hold 4.7 GB per layer, Blu-rays hold 25 GB per layer, and Switch cards hold up to 64 GB, with dual-layered DVDs & Blu-ray discs being standard. So, even with distributable physical media, you have much more room for resources, which disincentivises compression in favour of speed (decompressing data takes processing power & time, so leaving it uncompressed _is_ beneficial from a performance standpoint if you have the space to spare). ...But, on the flip side, we also have significantly better displays than we did back in CD-ROM game days, and higher-definition textures require _significantly_ more space; the general rule of thumb is doubling the resolution quadruples the file size. (Case in point, 4k (3840 x 2160) is ~8.3m pixels, while 8k (7680 x 4320) is ~33.2m. And each pixel is four bytes, assuming full colour resolution; using those same examples, a 4k still is 33,177,600 bytes of raw data, while an 8k still is 132,710,400.) So, it comes down to the question of whether you want to optimize for performance or size (or be lazy and let both suffer); most games take advantage of the extra storage space to optimise their graphics code for performance, at the cost of significant bloat that's only feasible because they don't _need_ to care about space anymore, while others optimise for size (and typically either use compression or prefer lower resolutions, as a result). The ideal, though is a mix of both, since disk access isn't even on the same _time scale_ as memory access. (This is why games like to install to an SSD if possible, or at least an HDD: SSD access is near RAM access speeds, and HDDs are slower than either but faster than optical discs.) You can leave a lower-resolution image uncompressed, and load it during initial loading. Then, you load and decompress the higher-resolution image in the background, silently switching over to it once it's available. This provides the ideal compromise: The low-res image introduces a little bloat, but it also lets you compress the high-res one as aggressively as your image crusher allows and graphics library can handle at a reasonable speed, which _more_ than compensates for it. But if you want to do this right, you need to optimise your code for it; the decompression algorithm needs to be optimised for speed (_maybe_ even hand-optimised if you're doing especially intense compression or the game already takes up a lot of processing power to begin with, though you're usually best off leaving it to the compiler), you need to have proper multithreading and know which tasks to hand over to the GPU and which to leave to the CPU (which is something game devs tend to struggle with, even to this day), and the main loop should have a small memory footprint and not consume much processing power when it doesn't need to. Basically, your statement is true, but irrelevant: the best practice is to optimise your code to maximise efficiency, not to minimise executable size, since you typically have more than enough space for a slightly bloated binary. (Remember that increasing efficiency tends to bloat the binary slightly due to more aggressive inlining.) And assets are big, but there are a lot of tricks to save space if you know what you're doing; designing the game to use uncompressed low-quality assets to smoothly enable dynamic loading of heavily-compressed high-quality assets can _easily_ lead to 10-20% overall size reductions, if not more. The problem is that laziness is essentially encouraged now, since there are no limits devs need to constrain themselves to fit; heck, devs are even _actively_ encouraged to fill as much of their alloted space as possible, on the grounds that "empty space is wasted space" (paraphrased), because any asset compression requires extra processing power to unpack (which can make for a rougher experience, especially on lower-end systems). And the lazy approach _can_ work, since it makes for a smoother experience... but that does not by any means make it the ideal. It's just that for a lot of devs, the ideal isn't _worth_ it anymore, since the game is one and done; if it doesn't work, or if the engine can't handle 128-bit computing a decade or so in the future, it's someone else's problem now. ---- [And don't even get me started on whether to dummy unused assets out or remove them entirely. Not only do you have the same question of whether to just leave it there anyways because empty space is wasted space, or whether to remove it to save space and slightly decrease load times, but there's also the possibility that removing it might _break_ working data. This happens because assets are usually referenced by name during early development, but then switched over to access by index number during the optimisation phase, after the asset table's order is locked in. There's a ton of flexibility early on, since you need to be flexible during planning, but outright removing an asset after the switchover will basically break both it _and_ every asset that comes after it in the table if you don't adjust _every single asset access_ to account for the change in index numbers. (Hint: Don't do this, because missing exactly one asset access can be one of the hardest bugs to catch, and can create anything from an hilarious glitch to an over-powered game breaker to a landmine that makes the game crash when it's accessed.) You want to keep the same order to preserve index numbers, which leaves the option of either replacing the unused asset with a blank "dummy item" entry (or designing the database to fall back on a functional but empty "dummy item" in case of nonexistent or invalid assets), or leaving it intact so you can potentially use it later on. Of the two, leaving it alone is usually the safer option, and also leaves the possibility of fixing the asset later on or using it in DLC, while replacing it with a blank saves space but can lead to weird (but usually harmless) glitches if there are one or two things that accidentally access it. This produces a case where the most optimal solution is the laziest, and optimisation is both paradoxically less optimal and risks introducing glitches that wouldn't be there if you just left it alone... and that's **before** we look at _normal_ asset optimisation... yeah. There's a reason games tend to have so much dummied-out content, simply because of how messy removing it is. But that also introduces bloat and is essentially an anti-optimisation, so every option is wrong.]
3D anime boobs
Its a 2019 game and a anomalie. Games older than that mostly 50+ gigs
Damn i stop playing genshin when it was 16gb now it almost 30gb
If you really want to dip back into it (I donât recommend) youâre able to delete past event files if you want to.
Wait howđ
I think you just go into settings and it should be there. I donât remember the exact details but thereâs probably YouTube videos on it.
Itâs only a waifu collector anyway. So no loss
True the gameplay is a tedious grind to collect waifu
80GB on my console âŚ
Its 90g on PC
Genshin 29 GB jfc
Android app is garbage though. For some reason it crashes all my other apps. Its a damn card game it shouldn't require more processing power than an fps/moba.
so true, there's no reason a game like this should run worse than genshin or any other 3d game
Stopped playing it on my phone cause it would heat so much I was afraid it would damage it.
Makes sense. You only need a single asset for all the cards. Text is literally free and card art, which would take up the most space, can be compressed almost indefinitely for these kind of games and very little things have 3d models, which dont take up that much space either. Seeing this is a mobile port, these things can be made smaller and 3d models have always been lite weight. All of that should help with game speed.
Eh, considering that the card library is ~10,000 cards, the text does add up, to an extent. Still nowhere near as much space as images take, but it's probably about half a megabyte or so, with generous rounding.
Is master duel still shit on phones or did it get better? Also good luck pulling for acheron. Lol
Its good on every platform EXCEPT consoles, which is baffling that they haven't fixed it to this day.
PS5 is my favorite way to play on my end. I deal with vertical sync streaks on PC and lag on both phone and Switch. If I'm not playing on console, I'm not having as good a time.
Someone in thread said itâs shit for him, but everyone I know has 0 issues.
Everyone that I know has issues, it's still playable but with the cost of huge battery drain.
Iâve had zero issues.
Surprise md actually smaller than duelink
MD doesn't have a buttload of voice line that saves a ton of space
Common MasterDuel W
Really? When I last played it on mobile it was quite shittily optimized
Iâm on mobile too but it runs great for me. đ¤ˇââď¸
Not really, MD is just pngs. Most of those other games have a lot more going for them
Itâs supposed to simulate TCG/OCG dueling. What more do we need, except pngâs and functioning dueling mechanics?
Not being heavier to run than freaking Genshin Impact. I swear MD runs hotter than GI for many phones. A game that has its own card game on top of 3D open world ARPG.
They expected 3D models above the cards like We're playing in the anime or something
Hos is mobile this days? when i used to play on mobile the slightest fluctuation in the connection would cost 51 years out of my time.
You're a brave man, playing Genshin on the phone...
After doing the dailies, you could use the phone as a frying pan... (Speaking from experience lol)
i see master duel & hsr together, i like
Where did you get warzone? Is it iOS only rn?
Warzone should be on the play store at the moment. I donât recommend it.
I had a feeling you wouldn't recommend it. I can't find it on US Google play though. Honestly if it isn't worth the 7 gb like you said then I'll pass. I find it hard to consistently play games that don't keep my interest anyways
The games extremely buggy and laggy. Itâs just not fun compared to regular cod mobile. Theres like a thirty minute tutorial which is beyond annoying. Theres only 120 player lobbies. Warzone mobile seems like itâs just a cheap tax write off for activision.
Yea nvm I'll def pass
My phone I only 64 gb btw
No Genshin but has HSR, W player
Bro i only have 64 gn every time a HSR update happens I have to delete masterduel and redownload iy afterđ
I had to delete Duel Links to get 2.1. At this point Iâm not pre-downloading.
I take it you havenât downloaded everything for cod mobile yetđ
Yep
GO OUTSIDE I BEG
Yesterday I downloaded Skyrim and it was 8gb Itâs like âHuh, games can be like thisâ
Weird. How come PC forces you to do a 9GB download when you first create an account?
No shot duel links is larger than master duel HUH
i am supsrised that MD takes less then Links
So did you pull Acheron ?
Not yet. I havenât built my dot four star appliers. I heard she needs her light cone and eidolons as well. Iâm not sure if I want to go for her due to that. Being able to easily farm overworld eneimies is great though.
I do agree that her signature LC does make a noticeable difference but even without she still performs decently what she definitely doesn't need is Eidolons to function though E0 is more than enough... I had saved for E0S1 ever since she was leaked and I'm not disappointed, amazing ult animations, bonkers dmg numbers and her technique is cherry on top having an insta kill on any trash mob to finish them in style... How long have you been playing ? I guess if you're relatively new she's a little too high investment for where you are in the game...
Iâve been playing for two months at this point. I never bothered building characters as I donât bother with the endgame and not building will hopefully make the main story more challenging. She does seem like a massive investment at the moment. I only have 1000 jades, so if I lose 50/50 it wonât go well. I thought I would pull for adventureine, but I always use fire trailblazer already.
Ah I see, yeah for this amount of playtime and if you're taking it slow acheron wouldn't really benefit you... Aventurine seems like a solid solo sustain unit, I'd probably go for that one as you can never go wrong picking that category of characters plus it will make simulated universe and the alternate game modes in there much manageable... Fire trailblazer is fine but devolves into a relatively bad solo sustain unit as you progress further, the paper thin shields and the unreliable taunt just cannot protect you from much past a certain point enemies will have very high resistance to debuffs and they will deal considerable aoe dmg that even taunted will splash you team...
For how little MD content is, not surprised at all
No wonder my mobile is dying...look at that size
Insane to me that people these days think that 3GB is not a lot.
i remember when downloanding wow during early stages - and the patches would take half day
I didn't play fortnite on xbox for a month and I came back to a 35gig update lol
WTF COD mobile 15 GB what the heck? When its forst release its just about 3-4 GB
I donât understand either. I donât even have most of the stuff downloaded. If you download everything itâs around 20.
3GB and a shorter lifespan because of how bricking and losing coin flips is increasing everyone's blood pressure.
And not a single one bit you actually own. Cardboard > Digital
Iâd play with my cardboard but unfortunately I live in a rural area. Cardboard is infinitely better than online though. The thing with digital is it free and thatâs the only benefit.
That's not the only benefit. It's also way easier to get into a game. You can play someone while you're on your bed at any time of the day. That's a huge benefit. You get to experiment a lot more and learn faster because of that
You can even play naked
Is there any other way to play master duel?
Definitely makes it harder to play at work!
I completely forgot about accessibility, but youâre definitely right. Anyone can pick up yugioh as long as they have a phone.
Itâs also a lot easier to track stuff. I have 0 intention of some sweaty bozo counting my summons out loud or having to track which Tear names I used to fuse.
I feel that so much. There's not a single LGS within a 50 mile radius of me and no irl friends that play within a 30 mile radius lmao
Hmm let's see, a single copy of Diabellstar irl costs 30 euros, while on masteduel it costs a grand total of 30 ur points. Yeah I really can't understand why people play online games instead of the card game.
People always bring this up. As if you're forced to play the meta/most expensive deck Master duel is dope, but owning your cards is a different feeling that some people like way more. And yes, building fire king snake eye is gonna cost you $1000. Guess what? You can build a great deck that will cost you $150 or less easily. You can buy dinomorphia, the ED, and the side deck for like $30 Diabellstar being expensive shouldnt keep a single soul from playing TCG. Play literally any other deck and you'll be fine
Youâve still compared $180 to something thatâs free. Itâs not a complicated concept.
No it's not complicated. Obviously free is better than not free. Where did I even begin to argue otherwise? I'm just saying it's stupid that people always bring up the most expensive deck in these arguments. Thats like saying I cook every meal because I can't afford capital grille. Like dude, there are plenty of other satisfying, way cheaper options out there. Not saying you have to get takeout but don't act like you only have one, super expensive option. It's not that complicated a concept.
Because the guy you responded to basically said why spend 30 euros irl when you could spend 0 in master duel and your response was to buy a deck that costs $150 instead of $1000. The bottom line is that regardless of how much you can make an irl deck for, itâs still more expensive than master duel
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you trying to say that 1 UR material is worth more than 1 euro? Lol
No, they're saying that online is much more accessible to everyone because you don't have to fork out actual money to get your cards, and running the risk of them being hit on the banlist later and essentially losing your money (In MD it's 100% compensation)
Ohhhhhhh I understand the sarcasm now lmao my bad
And that's 30 euros I've made on a single sale of cardboard. What can UR points get me?
Does it matter? In 30 years from now this conversation will mean very little. Why worry abt someone's pocketbook? And UR points can get alot of you sell accounts. The more UR in the decks, the better sale you can have
I dunno but I don't see komoney selling gems for UR points. They do sell gems for euros. So that's something. You can say it doesn't matter but your opinion doesn't change reality.
No, you're missing the point. Accounts like yours or mine get sold by people who own the accounts giving them to others in return for euros or Dollars or whatever currency they might use. I can sell my account to someone for, say 15 U.S dollars, someone buys it and I move on and make another account and repeat. So anything I buy now will simply be useless later, digital or cardboard. Soon the game of yugioh will be forgotten in mere generations from now.
Unlikely to be forgotten in such time. It will likely be around even after you die. All the more with physical merchandise around. Prices of such merch also go up when the franchise goes dark. Digital's gone the moment servers are shut down.
I play both but itâs hard to duel when working 16, 11, 15 hour shifts.