In the fleet selection, can you change the class name and description? Any plans to finally make the ship designer accessible from the main menu as well or accessible through the civ builder?
[quote who="sailormau1" reply="34" id="3666630"] My main disgust. I have to spend $20 more for a invasion system that I've been waiting on since day 1 of playing this game [/quote] It is rather annoying to have a feature that the devs talk up before launch, then pull because the initial iteration was broken and never going to make the launch date (though the game wasn't ready by launch anyway) with the promise that something was just beyond the next updat
Given that the designer is a genuine standout feature for the game it makes it even more of a shame that over the last 2 years that so little has been done to make the experience better.
[quote who="Larsenex" reply="34" id="3665684"] Well one has to admit that even if they just copy and pasted the entire code for GCII into GCIII (espionage) it would still be better than having nothing. [/quote] Only if you take the base view that espionage should be in the game regardless. If porting an old system into a newer version makes the game experience worse than nothing is preferable.
[quote who="Larsenex" reply="23" id="3665560"] The GCII system (of Espionage) was good and I suspect this is the same type of interaction but better implemented. More importantly I would like visibility to what the ai factions is going via espionage which we did get in GCII. Things like buildings being built or what the current research is (which is extremely helpful). [/quote] I have to disagree on the GC2 system being "good". But each to their own.
Must say I expected more from espionage. Particularly given we were told multiple times that the reason it was continuously held back was that it wasn't just going to be the GC2 system. The other features sound good though.
[quote who="Seilore" reply="9" id="3651747"] Quoting The Sisko, reply 5 Okay. You overpaid and people can get the game for a quarter of that. Okay let's break this down, shall we... If you've been playing since release because you wanted the game then and you purchased all
[quote who="Seilore" reply="3" id="3651574"] Quoting admiralWillyWilber, reply 2 Only the elite founders. Make fun of us now that we paid $100 up front [e digicons]:)[/e] [/quote] Okay. You overpaid and people can get the game for a quarter
[quote who="Gauntlet03" reply="5" id="3650915"] " - More options and capabilities to mod custom races. Custom races can be linked to custom fleet packs and exported together, etc." This hasn't really been committed to before though. Certainly not for this particular update/expansion/etc. [/quote] Paul talked about it in the last stream.
None of the features mentioned haven't already been mention, so disappointed to have no new information. Not even any real expansion on those features, so I wonder how far along they are with it. Interesting to hear it won't be a standalone expansion. Kind of makes the holding pattern the games being in for a while now feel like a bit of a waste. Add to the wish for a dev stream in the near future showing what they are working on or have done.
They are planning on releasing a standalone expansion next year. So I would wait until that comes out and jump in then rather than having to potentially have to buy the game twice in under a year.
Really enjoyed the MechCommander series so I'm hoping this doesn't meet the same fate as MechWarrior Tactics.
I do have concerns about balance on smaller maps with some of these weapon components. I'm wondering if they need a >1 galactic resource cost attached to their building requirements or some adjustment to cost and mass.
Shipdefs you say? My computer doesn't seem to think it is new nor does it show it as having any changes since last year let alone the recent patch.
The top 3 isn't a surprise when you consider the others (and assuming Mercs is excluded). 2 have terrible Steam ratings, which imo are fair and the third is quite niche. As for the order I would have probably listed Precursor Worlds 1st and Snathi second, but not unhappy to see them up there. My personal favourite would be either the Snathi or the Builder's Kit. I was more excited for the Snathi, but I probably use the Builder's Kit more. I wouldn&#
I've brought it up multiple times here, on Steam and even in dev streams. Explained it at least 3 times (including directly to Paul in a dev stream) when the devs have asked for more info on it. So I haven't forgotten and have tried to get the devs to implement the fix.
You can't find it because it doesn't exist. It was one of many beta ideas that never made it into the game. Currently the only way to do what you want is to either modify the existing ship sets or create a completely new one. Both have to be done outside the game. There is a thread in the modding section that covers how to do it, but you'll probably need to search for it. It was called something along the lines of "How to create a ship style
^ 2
I agree with a0152570 to a point. The right list with the habitable worlds should only populate when you discover those worlds. Currently you can see them all and you not only know where good worlds close to you are, you also know where the AIs are. That said, I think that for the most part the info on the left should be seen regardless with one change: "Habitable Plants" should just be "Planets". It makes sense that given your supposed starting tech level that you wou
Have you got mods enabled? Apart from that you'll probably need to post info from the XML files and people then can have a look and see if there are any problems with it.
[quote who="TheHordesman" reply="5" id="3637762"] I have encountered this problem as well. Also, sometimes the strengths and weaknesses text will shoot off to the left corner of the screen on a game startup instead of being beneath the history description. [/quote] I get that as well and it seems to be when there is too much text for the box, so it pushes that section out and drops it in the top left corner.
Nerco-ed or not, it is strange that we still can't rename stars in game. I remember back in the beta it was always "coming soon"
While the incorrect visual displays are clearly a bug whether losing that battle is a bug is not as clear. Which is one of the major problems with combat: too much seems to be obscured from the player. The tooltip really only papers over this crack. We don't know what Victory Certain means in general let alone to specific battles. You'd have to guess it occupies a range between 100%-?. However, you never know when you're going to be towards the 100% o
It's essentially a broken promise. It was meant to be one of the first things fixed coming out of the beta, but has just been continually pushed back and now will never be part of the base game. Given it has been pushed back so far hopefully that will mean we'll actually get something meaningful. Also I hope that they take the opportunity to look at the combat system as a whole. It needs significant work as well.
You're not the first to be caught out by it nor will you be the last. This the exact reason back when ship roles were first introduced during the beta that I requested that the Guardian ship name be changed to differentiate itself from the guardian ship role. It can be seen as a minor thing, but its things like this that can help make the game more new player friendly.