[quote who="mattiscool555" reply="15" id="3411658"] Like I said I'm sure community input will be there, but I also believe they have a vision for what they are trying to create.[/quote] Yep.
[quote who="Wintersong" reply="23" id="3411432"] And don't get me started in lasers being colored beams that make noises in space. And what about that cosmic music that seems to play all over the galaxy???? In space, no one can hear your OST!!!! Or ships leaving no wreck behind once destroyed.[/quote] There was once a whole TV program about all the simulated noise in space operas (movies and TV). There was agreement that space does not conduct sound, so noone would actually hear t
As a retired programmer, I would have to say that the hardest part of converting GC2 into GC3 would be the change in addressing mode. Been there (x24 to x31), done that, wish I had done a complete rewrite. Kudos to SD for making the hard choice.
[quote who="Aeraellien" reply="25" id="3411396"] Agreed that one dimensional morality is pretty lame, how many dimensions before its over complex and un-useful?[/quote] Or for that matter, overwhelming to the gamer? Not to worry, SD has in the past been very good at finding a good balance.
[quote who="mattiscool555" reply="13" id="3411608"] It's not a huge deal man and it's cool that you apologize, but just remember I'm sure they already have a pretty good idea of what they're planning to build. I'm sure our input will be taken into account but in the end they'll make the game they feel best represents their vision. Anything anyone says on here is speculation and what he wants isn't any more important or accurate than what anyone else says. Ign
This is where the trailer is: https://forums.galciv3.com/448978/page/3/#3410441
[quote who="GJDriessen" reply="6" id="3411393"] Can't we have fuel or something like it in GC3? I find it adds a lot of depth to the game, e.g. as in Distant Worlds. Of course it should not be too tedious.[/quote] I find this is a bit difficult to envision. After all, we are a long ways from 2178, and we have already discovered and collected antimatter. Do you have any theories on potential new fuel types?
[quote who="Supergulo" reply="6" id="3410825"] The outlines dont worry me, I could disable them in Borderlands by editing some files. Its just that it does not look like a warship. The middle hole even reminds me of how cruises also have the cabins like that around the promenade.[/quote] Ah. Yes, having a fixed idea of what a warship should look like can be quite jolting when you see what someone else thinks a warship looks like. Just accept it as be
[quote who="michaelwhittaker" reply="15" id="3411368"]Wait u r telling me that stardock is not going to do much programming on this game.[/quote] I think you misunderstand. The designers, programmers, and artists Tyrantissar is talking about are StarDock employess (or at least mostly so). And if the external Alpha is going to start early next year, then they must have produced a lot of code and art work already.
Michaelwhittaker, this is getting too far afield from what I understand to be the purpose of this forum, but let me try to answer your questions in minimum terms, so as to redirect discussion here to what this forum is for (and my apologies to all for being so nit-picky about the difference between Ram (to which the game will only have indirect access, through the OS), virtual memory (which is mapped by the OS to Ram and Swap file space, and is what the OS gives the game for its code and data
If you mouse in the border below someone else's reply you will find 4 icons on the right side of it. Thumbs up (+1 Karma), a triangle with an exclamation in it (report reply with several suggested reasons), quote, and reply.
[quote who="mattiscool555" reply="37" id="3411306"]Star Trek is hardly science fact.[/quote] So what do you consider science fact?
I am wondering if Zydor is misinterpreting what others are saying. He seems to be thinking that everyone wants to eliminate the strategy aspects of the game.
The only thing more Ram will do is to reduce the paging rate. The game may check on the amount of Ram available and use that as a throttle for map size (and perhaps graphics quality settings) but almost no app references Ram directly (and most that do does so as sparingly as it can). It gets at it through tables that the OS sets up and maintains. Also, the Ram available is shared between the OS and the running apps.
[quote who="Tyrantissar" reply="11" id="3411249"] I am kind of wondering why he would say mass drivers would do the most damage. apparently I would say the missiles would do the most damage too. Maybe it is best we leave this discussion for another time. Information is so scarce right now on the actual game that it hasn't even made the alpha yet.[/quote] Perhaps reflecting back to GC2 will help. Weapons were divided into three classes, 1) Energy (or Beam), 2) Missiles (self
[quote who="Tyrantissar" reply="6" id="3411243"]Well even if we lost our engine, we have most of our weapons in tact, open fire![/quote] "What do you mean we can't fire our weapons?" "Without the engine, we have no power for the weapons."
[quote who="Tyrantissar" reply="3" id="3411235"]Because this is now considered a 4X game, then that completely changes the series from a TBS to RTS.[/quote] So how does being a 4X game make it an RTS? Aren't GC1 and GC2 4X games? Those are most definitely TBS games.
[quote who="Tridus" reply="31" id="3411187"]Spamming constructors and then having a fully upgraded Starbase just appear out of nowhere is silly. Also, constructor spam is tedious and annoying, not good micro.[/quote] IMO, spamming constructors was the only way to keep a new Starbase from getting destroyed by your enemy. If you destroyed an enemy's resource SB and wanted to use that resource right away, you had to be able to build up its defenses FAST.
At this point I don't think even SD would have an answer for that one. I do know that Civ V and AoE ran rather slow and generated a lot of heat in my GPU on my previous PC, and GC3 has minimum requirements already listed that implies to me that, like any strategy game, using its maximum potential (such as large maps and maximum graphics detail settings) will probably push any system that only just meets the game's minimum requirements, Also, I know from experience that we (the
[quote who="baldbill46" reply="55" id="3411170"] I know I seem to be at odds with most of the posters, here but I really thought the GCII tech tree was a good one. Could it have some improvement, sure but I liked most of what they had. There was lots of it, so you never ran out of stuff to research. I don't want them to throw away all they had before.[/quote] I agree.
Zydor, I really think rants for or against an idea are poor form. Please permit us to put forward our ideas as well.
[quote who="DivineWrath" reply="5" id="3411163"] The best you can get that I know of is under the "governers" tab in the "civilization manager" window. There, you can assign ships to travel to different rally points in many different ways. Since the window is bigger, you can see more rally points at once. The individual rally points there even have that little "i" in a circle that will bring up rally point details (much like how you can get more details with ships). It might not be what
Oppps. Corrected. Thanks.
[quote who="qrtxian" reply="5" id="3411159"] On a related note, and pursuant to some of the discussion that's been going on about random events, does the fact that the Dread Lords have been defeated permanently storyline-wise mean there won't be a Dread Lords event in the sandbox game? I assume there still will, but I'd like some official confirmation as "evil super-race suddenly (re)appears)" is one of the more "classic" random events - and sci-fi plotlines for that matter
[quote who="Tyrantissar" reply="1" id="3411140"]Also, fix spelling please[/quote] What spelling? I do see a grammatical error and will fix that, but I don't see a spelling error.