Apart from Steam achievements and such, is there any significant differences between the two clients?
No. Steam client might have faster loading times since it stores more resources locally on your computer. Also keyboard shortcuts (Ctrl + C / V / A etc.) don't work in Steam client, because of Adobe Air or something similar.
Achievements and things like the Steam login issues aside, the main difference between the two is that one or the other can lag a lot more for certain users. In my case, Steam is noticeably laggy with every action, while browser has no lag whatsoever. While this seems to be the more common circumstance, some users have mentioned the opposite, where browser (especially when using IE10) can be a lot slower. My advice, pick whichever one is most convenient for you, then consider the other one if you encounter any issues.
Thanks everyone for the info. It's actually quite useful to have both. The Steam one runs a little bit better for me (marginally), but the web one is great for my work computer where I can't install anything. Staying in a hotel won't be quite so boring now.
One nice thing about the web client is that you can go to the test server and play around with fantasy builds without giving yourself a bunch of achievements you didn't earn. And you don't have re-download the client when you switch servers. And you can log into multiple accounts at the same time, which I do when making boards because even the Steam client takes over 30 seconds to open the board editor.
Since the Castle has brought us more Necromancy via Spirit and Zombie forms plus a certain new Spark, my bump should be fine, right? It's related, right? $:^ ] Question: can anyone supply numbers (resource usage) for Steam vs. Web clients? It's weird to see people reporting opposite results on which is better, but I'm considering going through the annoying process (I found myself literally sighing at length while typing that) of signing up for Steam, downloading whatever, installing, going through no telling how much more rigmarole, etc. just to be able to play CH better than via browser. But what if it's really not an improvement? I really, really don't want to have to go through all that hassle if I can read numbers first. I started playing CH via Kongregate (via Chrome via Windows 7). Eventually, the 400 kB sucking of RAM got to me, and I tried CH's own website. (Very strange to me how Kong didn't have badges to earn. Years later, and CH is still the #1 CCG listed on the front page!) EDIT: Realize, I run on 1 GHz and 1.5 GB; I've crashed multiple times while playing CH on Kong. I recently tried playing CH via CH's website via Edge (via Windows 10), and it kept locking up on trying to load certain screens. Switching to Chrome fixed that. I don't want to use Chrome just for one "app." That's annoying. (I'd rather just use all my other browsers for development/testing. It's the only reason they're even there now. I love me some Edge! $:^ ] heheh) ...but what are some RAM and CPU usage comparisons between the website (and your browser of choice I guess) vs. Steam, O fellow Cardhuntrians? Thank you kindly, Bob
Technically Steam version should have slight advantage but take note Steam client itself takes resources. As for browsers IMO Google Chrome is best for Card Hunter.
Thanks for the response, Galvatron. I expect Steam takes resources, but of course so do browsers; thing is, I've never ever seen Steam actually at work -- and I've only visited their website 2-3 times. Just saying, I'm 98% Steam ignorant. Trying to search online for what resources Steam takes gives me links to Steam propoganda, anti-Steam propoganda, and STEM resources. I'd just like to know how much RAM it takes, for example. CPU usage is probably fine, but since there's no non-percentage setting on Windows Task Manager for it, it's not like I could ask for realistic numbers there anyway. Et cetera.
I've used Steam almost a decade for gaming and I love it! This is how much Steam takes recources in my computer: Oh, and Card Hunter seems to be using some extra processes: But as you can see, that one also is negligible when it comes to memory. So if that's too much, throw your abacus away and buy something from this century EDIT: Just realized you probably also want to know how much does the game itself use resources when run through Steam, not just the Steam processes: And this is how much resources the game uses through Firefox: So in the end I concur with DunDunDun's advice: use the one you like
Firefox updated last night and today I'm seeing tons of lag in Card Hunter, so I may finally switch over to using Steam as my primary client. Have some more stats: (no other applications running except Notepad and Task Manager) no browser, no games running: Steam idle: 14.4 MB Steam client: Card Hunter + Steam: 24.1% CPU, 348.8 MB Firefox without Cardhunter: Firefox: 0.9% CPU, 225.0 MB Firefox and Card Hunter: Card Hunter + Firefox: 34.5%, 595.8 MB These stats were after reaching the map (and waiting a bit for everything to settle down) but before playing any battles. So any memory leaks will make everything worse.
Personally, for me I've played CH on Comodo Dragon (Chrome-based browser) and it played ok but I seem to have smoother gameplay on Steam on my Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 laptops though my 8.1 laptop has much more updated hardware where as my 7 was orignially built for Vista.
Thanks much, folks, especially for the empirical stats. Ironically, when running CH on Edge the other day, I don't recall numbers now, but CPU+RAM usage were actually nowhere near maxing out. I'm guessing a particular bug or something? -- but that's weird b/c afaik, Win10 uses the same Flash build for everything (if you're gonna use it). Nevertheless, with @Kalin showing a 250 MB increase and @j3st3ri showing about the same numbers (but leaving out any Firefox Flash plug-in stuff), yeah, Steam looks like it would (amazingly) be lower on resources... I intend to keep this earned abacus for the foreseeable future $:^ J (even though it doesn't meet the minimum resources for GameMaker Studio 2, awww,) thus ... ~deep breath~ ... yeah, I'll try diving into Steam before the year ends. Maybe before the month ends. Heh. Thanks to @Galvatron and @wereviper for the anecdotal observations, too. Once I get Steam going, I'll report back here my own findings (vs. browsers etc.) for prosperity ..and posterity. $:^ P
Yeah, I missed the plugins, because there's plenty of processes between the letters F and P. Here's the plugins: Obviously not all the plugins are used by Card Hunter. Here's all the plugins I have in Firefox:
Chrome uses its own internal, custom version of Flash where possible, which is why Chrome will very often work better- or worse- than other browsers. Unfortunately, inconsistency across platforms is a fairly common thing for Flash-based games. Anyway, from what I've seen, Chrome and Steam tend to much more often have memory utilization/leaking issues, while Firefox and Chrome tend to be more unstable than Steam. Kongregate is a bad call in general, since their API tends to cause a lot of issues for games, and that certainly seems to be a constant thing with Card Hunter. Seems everyone has pretty different experiences across the platforms, however, so in the end I think it'll all boil down to you figuring out which one is working best for you. If Chrome (or rather, any specific browser other than your primary one) is working, that's a pretty ideal option: Just create a shortcut to game.cardhunter.com tied specifically to Chrome, and place it into onto your desktop, or in your start menu. You can easily use Chrome as nothing more than a game launcher, much like Steam, without having to worry about treating it like an additional browser.
I'm not sure without diving more into it, but maybe using a program live Drive Booster from Iobit Inc to keep your hardware's software up-to-date may help? I mean I use it and have all my drivers up-to-date and don't hardly experence issues. This program I believe also helps keep Flash, Shockwave and the what not up-to-date too if I remember correctly.
Regarding the screenshots of memory usage, I think it's worth pointing out that the memory usage after you've been playing for awhile can be far higher than the usage when the game is first opened. (Most likely due to memory leaks in the game.) For example, when I first launch the game (from Steam), I has similar memory usage to what has been posted so far. ie. roughly 250Mb; but after playing ~5 campaign modules, the memory usage is usually closer to 1300Mb; and then the game crashes... My point is just that if you are going to compare memory usage and performance, be sure to check after you've played for awhile rather than just after you've opened the game.
I've not paid much attention to that but then again I can seem to play games like Neverwinter or Shadowverse and they seem to work just fine even after playing for a few hours.
Eek, almost two months. Sorry about that. I'll post findings as I go, even if it just means editing this post, but the fact that I've been hooked while on Steam says a lot for the stability and smoothness. I've never seen CH this responsive before. It's lovely. That said, I still get a crash now and then, but it's no big deal (generally) in contrast to the past. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CPU ~~~~ RAM ~~~~~~~ Just started CH. Still at the pick-your-username screen. CardHunter.exe (32 bit) ~~~ 23-27% ~~ 10.8% (52.1 MB) gameoverlayui.exe (32 bit) ~ 1-2% ~~~~ 0.3% (1.5 MB) Steam Client stuff x6 ~~~~~ 0-2% ~~~~ 2.2% (10.6 MB) Next screen. Campaign vs. Multiplayer. CardHunter.exe (32 bit) ~~~ 24-28% ~~24.4% (118 MB) the rest: insignificant increases Enter Tournamentria, then leave for Cardhuntria proper. (MP then Campaign.) Play battle #3 of MM22 once. Enter a couple shops. CardHunter.exe (32 bit) ~~~ 30-43% ~~ 48% (306 MB) the rest: insignificant decreases More later. $:^ J
