WIllythemailboy

[quote who="joeball123" reply="376" id="3424812"]Also, you call my argument self-centric. Yes, it is. So is yours, and so is the argument of anyone who has ever made any kind of argument whatsoever, because the bottom line is that people only argue for the things in which they believe, or to improve their ability to argue for the things in which they believe, or to impress other people. Your argument for autoresolve and manual control being mutually exclusive is at least as self-centric as my

[quote who="Bioecologist" reply="371" id="3424780"] I agree with what you just said except for one major point: Quoting WIllythemailboy, reply 3705. A shoot-em-up, by common usage, is a game where you directly control what units are shooting at what. It's going back pretty far, but both PTO and PTO II were completely turn based shoot-em-up games. Maneuvering individual ships (and in PTO, air wings) and choosing what they shot at and when was the defining characteristic of

1. While tactical combat isn't a defining characteristic, it does affect games substantially. If for no other reason, development assets are spent making it that could have been used on other aspects of the game. 2. No argument. See tactical combat definition below. 3. As I have stated previously, you are 100% completely wrong here. Your particular play style may make tactical control truly optional, but others do not play the game the same way you do

[quote who="adrencrow" reply="6" id="3424702"] Quoting Seilore, reply 4 Quoting Frogboy, reply 2Alpha will be going out this Winter to those with Founder's Elite. So by that we can assume December 21st??? or more like March 19th Okay I know this is a gift and we'll be happy with whatever it is. Just poking a little think nothing of it I know you people at star dock have been saying this winter co

[quote who="michaelwhittaker" reply="22" id="3424695"] Oh yeah this was miner, but I noticed things like when I made something like a research facility I didn't get the research or manufacturing points it promised. I assumed that this was called becaise the civilization screen worked of divying up whatever. Maybe I'm not clearly explaining this. All I'm saying is how come I never got all the points for stuff I built when I built it. This was minorly irritating that I could n

[quote who="mormegil" reply="18" id="3424618"]I will say that the Focus on the sliders in the Interview was primarily a result of the Interviewers bringing it up repeatedly, I do think there is room for improvement in the economy is handled. (More of that later) But our goal, main and Brads, is the make sure that the game is true to GC2, we know that interactions like you describe with other races, trade routes, trading techs and ship, etc. Make for some great moments, If anything we will be

[quote who="Hawawaa" reply="76" id="3421288"]OH I got a new galaxy name size... "Mines Bigger Than Yours"[/quote] "Even the Hubble Can't See the Edge of This Map"

Especially with higher logistics numbers, tiny hulls could take down a bigger ship pretty easy. The main reason no one did that was that the tiny hulls couldn't have engines if they were going to have any significant amount of weapons.

[quote who="Azurak" reply="362" id="3424430"]Ah, well, that's a bummer. At least tell me it's not going to be real time...[/quote] You can take that as a given. One feature we do have confirmation on is that there will be some sort of completely asynchronous multiplayer - meaning it will be playable by more than one person without them ever being online at the same time. I do my turn this morning, you do yours over lunch, I do mine again when I get home after work, etc. Real t

[quote who="michaelwhittaker" reply="36" id="3424316"] Quoting qrtxian, reply 34 I don't really have a problem with AI surrender behavior, but I don't think it's ever a good thing to have "turn it off" as the only solution to a problem. If you have a better solution to what you don't think is a problem then I would like to hear it. The reason I think it is the best solution is because someone likes planet trading and surrenders, or it would not be on the

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="79" id="3424126"]For instance, the way star bases are being handled (we don't like the constructor spam so we're tying the star bases to their planets).[/quote] Can't say I'm happy to hear that. I'll wait to see how it is implemented, but I can't see how any tied system can match the speed and flexibility of the constructor system. It's going to feel like bases have been nerfed pretty hard.

[quote]But in this new scenario where ships receive evasion bonuses and each ship fires at ships in their weapon ranges, Fleet B could send their Tiny ships in to surround Fleet A's dreadnoughts and draw fire, while the two Medium and Large ships strike from a distance. [/quote] This scenario assumes either 1. the mediums and large outrange the huge ships and can keep out of their range or 2. the huge ships would be stupid enough to waste time firing on the tiny hulls at the

[quote who="mormegil" reply="5" id="3423342"]planetary governess [/quote] Only if you officially refer to it as the "planet nanny".

[quote who="androshalforc" reply="4" id="3421844"] Quoting DivineWrath, reply 2My thought is, what happens when the minor civ is uplifted mid game? Do they suddenly get a bunch of planets to so they can compete with the established civilizations? If a minor civilization is uplifted without proper resources, it would be easy prey for the other civilizations. If a minor civ is uplifted mid game, but it has no means to do anything, did anything change? i would think t

[quote who="John Falkenberg" reply="61" id="3423229"] In Galciv the war 'penalty' is far too cheap. War, rather than being a great strain and drain of both lives and resources, is pretty much a cheap, risk-free way to expand your empire. Now the devs understood some of this, and implemented the logistics cost which was a good first step, but like many things in Galciv2, the concept was there, but the implementation left a lot to be desired. They put in the war-penalty, but I woul

6c) If you are using the same ship upgrade model, give us a "upgrade all ships of this type in this fleet" option. I might have 200 of the same type of ship I need to upgrade over the span of 20-25 turns, it would be really nice to be able to do them in blocks of 8-10 at a time instead of "all" or "one at a time from the fleet management box". 5b) The option for space miners to turn off entirely instead of going into standby if nothing is in range. Or at least a way to easily search f

[quote who="mormegil" reply="11" id="3421591"] This image is pretty old, but ill try and get something more update, out and in a Journal soon. It is not far off of what we currently have working, but it is a bit misleading. I think you guys will like what we are doing. [/quote] I'm going to have to get a bit pedantic on the bolded part. Is it really necessary to specify this? I mean, how often does someone float an idea as "I bet the players are

[quote who="glupor" reply="14" id="3422657"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 13I am penalizing the dumber AIs by giving them less stuff. This is a significant change from stardocks age old philosophy of a non 'cheating' ai except at extreme difficulties.[/quote] I think he means more in terms of multipliers on things like economy, ship strength, etc. On "Moron", the AI will be fully functional but only get maybe 10% of the benefits from such things. A planet under thei

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="45" id="3422656"]No Find button in GalCiv III.[/quote] Wow, totally wasn't looking for things that should be there but aren't. There must be another feature that will serve the same purpose, otherwise we'll be misplacing fleets faster than change vanishes into a couch.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="42" id="3422555"] Hmm. Not one question regarding the Find button.[/quote] Is that the fourth tab in the colony list box? The exclamation point in a circle thing? I speculated that it might be an event tracker or something in reply #19. Or is it possibly the tab next to that with a list type icon? There's no button explicitly marked "Find", otherwise we'd be all over that :)

[quote who="XyanZero" reply="9" id="3422045"] Another way to look at it would be that all the ships you and the other players build represent the only military and civic based ships. No doubt there are countless civilian ships of all races flying around doing what they do in their daily lives. Just like in real life not every boat, car, and plane is the product of the government. I would even say that once a tech has been researched that technology will be available to these civilians a

It's probably just placeholder text for now. Frogboy is giving us an idea of what the tech screen will look like, but don't read too much into the specifics at this point.

[quote who="UnleashedElf" reply="88" id="3421197"]Yes but according to you, how would you include tactical combat without skipping it without penalty? By nature with tactical combat, skipping it "without penalty" must be entirely through an autoresolve like mechanic.[/quote] I'm not contradicting myself at all, I'm saying they might take the waste-of-development-resources route and make autoresolve battles end as well or better than controlled battles. It's "optional" in t

[quote who="UnleashedElf" reply="83" id="3421130"] Quoting WIllythemailboy, reply 53Be careful what you wish for; I'm going to continue railing against tactical combat until we see for sure which way it goes. After that, well, I can always go back to GalCiv2 if the tactical combat fanboys wreck the game as badly as I think they're going to. If this post were to be taken seriously, we are "fanboys" and the game has a 100% chance (in your opinion) of being wrecked

[quote who="UnleashedElf" reply="78" id="3420973"] That's a dangerous fallacy to be making. Historically whenever a computer game has been released in a buggy, alpha state, the developers and defenders of the developer always try to defend that developer as a "small percentage of unhappy players". In reality, that "small percentage" is speaking for a very large percentage.[/quote] I say from years of experience on the World of Warcraft