Visual enhancement of buildings without compromising playability

I mean, it’s an optional biome you don’t have to play with?

It’s not being marketing as better textures, or any kind of graphical improvement for the base game. I really don’t get the pushback.

I get it’s not something you wanted, but that doesn’t mean others can’t enjoy it. We all want things added to the game, or for the game to be improved in some way. I like the new biome and I still really want mod tools enhancements. I’ve also highlighted certain art things in this thread I think need work.

But honestly? Not that fussed about saturation. Turning up the G slider on an RGB value doesn’t turn it from “drab” to “great” for me. I like the soft palette. To me that’s more preference than large patches of grass looking badly aliased, or the water needing work.

1 Like

Yes, I think the same…at least it looks more beautiful and colorful…

1 Like

I think that thing that our friend @EricGonzalezM wants to say is that while the game has many unmet graphical demands, devs give us something that no one asked for

(some people in this forum argue that the game needs more urgent things to do when people demand graphic)


People have been asking for more biomes for a long time. We don’t get many of them. A time-limited fantasy biome that doesn’t impact competitive is great, imo. We got a couple of biomes with Season 3 too, I think?

I get being disappointed that the thing you want more isn’t apparently being prioritised, but for you to claim that “nobody asked for more biomes” is a bit silly.

1 Like

no, wrong answer. I think is both demands

that the problem because players demand a better BASE graphics and if they have time to do this biome so they should for this issue.

1 Like

Is blue filter a Bioma? Seriously, i dont know

Already answered that one. I get it.

However, they can’t work on everything at the same time, and therefore, some things are chosen above others. Some things will take longer to address, assuming they’re even being worked on.

Still doesn’t mean this biome is a bad idea. It’s just not for everyone. And that’s fine.

truth, but it has a side effect of giving every critic out there, myself included, a pretty clear indication that whoever’s in charge of development rn has to rethink their priorities on matters like this, nothing against the new limited time biome, but i agree with people that think that time should’ve been spent on improving the underwhelming presentation in the rest of the game, not even a big overhaul, just get rid of the completely unnecessary blurry filter over all the textures in the game, lighting being completely underused / hardly ever seen (honesty alert: ty for that one competitive tryhards that motivated or requested this to begin with, i hope you’re happy with mediocare product), maybe a saturation slider or smt similar, redoing the shrunk buildings with smt in line with suggestions elsewhere on this thread and so on, this post is long enough already, but there’s plenty that needs some work that i didn’t mention


All I can say is that it’s easy to judge effort from the result of the end product. “just spend the time doing something else” is an easy sell if you want that something else and are willing to wait for it.

But I still get it. I personally don’t want us to give us less things in the meantime, but I can see why you and others might.

(this is without derailing into how a biome is primarily art, and there are performance concerns in updating art and effects that need considered)

what i described carries 0 performance hit, that won’t fly here

1 Like

Both lighting and texture fidelity (aka size) absolutely do. But like I said, that’s a derail and not the main point I was making.

i see someone hasn’t seen my posts in the past, cause otherwise you’d know what lighting i’m refering to here, placing sun on different time of day has 0 perf hit, removing the post processed blur from textures carries 0 hit, and so on, and yes that blur is post processed, because otherwise reshade wouldn’t work on it
i’m just making simple common sense suggestions, but its not like the ones leading the development are busy taking it in


We’re going around in circles then, because I’ve explicitly talked about a day-night cycle as well :slight_smile: Adding more lighting (which is what I was taking away from “underused”) has an impact.

Reshade will sharpen using some kind of algorithm. You can sharpen anything that’s blurry - you’re not getting at some kind of unfiltered texture (unless you can demonstrate this by pulling the actual game assets - I wouldn’t know, as I haven’t checked), it’s basically attempting to recreate what you think the original image source looks like. It doesn’t mean that the game itself is using post-processing to blur the source. Reshade is just a layer / pipeline on top.

I don’t really know what textures are explicitly blurry (vs. intentionally painter-ly) - I’m not denying they exist - but generally speaking, blur is to obscure detail. Encoding detail causes a larger file size, because you’re encoding more data. You can have two images, both at the same resolution, come out at differing file sizes depending on the complexity of the data being encoded (varies per image compression algorithm, but it’s been a while since I compared them). This is probably better saved for a PM or another thread though.

I appreciate this comes across as “inventing reasons against the thing you want”, but I can guarantee it’s something the devs consider when prioritising things on their stack. Image optimisation is a big thing in my field of work too (web and native / mobile software development).

EDIT - also, just want to say, I’m not against anything you’re talking about. I’m trying to debate the “they should have done this” because it sounds like you’re making ithings sound trivial to do, and if that were the case I promise you they would have done it.

tldr for my take is this, i shouldn’t require external software just to make image look like smt resembling a game released in 2021

no need to invent any reason with devs just giving them left and right, art is perfectly fine, but whoever handled map lighting angle and direction, alongside certain specific shaders (namely water but this isn’t a water thread) might wanna reconsider some of those calls, because while art, as you put it, works for the optimized image, the above mentioned specific calls don’t, hell, here’s my exclusive take on the new biome, i really like the light play on display, very creative, but it hit the unfortunate timing of being added while most people see other things as higher priority

EDIT: and yes i’ll happily play the new biome even if i never specifically asked for it, hope it stays in editor for some wicked scenario or maps down the line

and ofc, i do agree i should elaborate on this, i never viewed it as trivial, especially not with essence tooling (obviously it works, but ofc it could use some UI restructure to lets say SCII or similar), but it does feel like what should come as an obvious conclusion to the issues currently present
EDIT: on they would’ve done it if trivial, maybe they would’ve, but hard to conclude as i only have limited exposure with relic’s games (COH2, AOE4, brief to DOWIII), you’re obviously the one with more insight on that topic

1 Like

The filter no, but the swampy terrain yes…


which means the resources invested are bad managed for focusing in a event that not everyone wanted if there a lot of issues to fix left.

1 Like


Biomes have been requested by players. Nothing is wanted by everyone, so the devs have to prioritise based on the data they have (and they do surveys regularly, which reach a larger playerbase than these forums).

1 Like

yes but some here not and you can see is only a filter not an actual terrain change that occurs in dota as example. only a palette change and blueberry filter. kinda lazy for call it a new biome