mattiscool555

[quote who="Ranger6" reply="48" id="3556404"] "If you'd like a refund, I'm happy to provide it as long as you agree to leave and never come back and never purchase anything ever again from us." The guy paid 60 bucks for the game. It gives him the right to gripe. As for this being your house, how about you try to remember who paid for the house. Yeah, paying customers paid for your house. The guy has some valid concerns. Instead of attacking him for i

edit: I was wrong. It does scale some but not very much. A starting Terran survey ship has 32 range on a tiny map and 64 on an insane one.

They shouldn't be scaled to larger maps. They should be scaled to smaller ones. Sensors as they sit are fine for anything gigantic and larger.

[quote who="JorgenCAB" reply="206" id="3551381"] And... allowing obvious abusive game mechanics that can easily be changed to make the AI more competitive seem like an odd choice to me. Why allow players to use a feature to make it easy and then let the AI cheat by knowing where all the good planets are on higher difficulties to compensate. This does not make any sense to me what so ever. If you play the game with no abuse of game mechanics the AI actually ar

[quote who="Maiden666" reply="204" id="3551375"] Quoting mattiscool555, reply 203 Once again, if the AI isn't using it, which as you say it isn't, then it is a conscious choice by the player to do so, and I'm sorry but lack of self restraint isn't something that the devs can patch out nor compelling reason

[quote who="Maiden666" reply="200" id="3550867"] Imagine someone plays strictly sandbox, trusts the ingame tooltips etc and, at some time, found his personal difficulty setting. At that, the game might appear challenging for him (which is good), but this person might consider reading up on tactis/strategies in order to not loose a game or being able to jump to the next level. That might be a real bummer then if said person comes to realize what OP stuff could be done, in which the AI has

[quote who="Surge72" reply="193" id="3550665"] And if you would pay more attention, the ridiculous stacking is an issue in single player as the AI doesn't know how to keep on stacking any one thing - so will never be able to make use of the gamey possiblities that the player uses. [/quote] don't use them. If players ruin their own experience in single player that is their problem. All MP does it water down the single player game.

[quote who="Seilore" reply="1" id="3550561"] #1 simply click your mouse over the credit amount and type what you want them to offer press okay [e digicons]:)[/e] [/quote] Actually from my experience that actually doesn't solve it as the AI still feels credits are being offered. I had the AI offer a trade where it wanted credits for tech. I zeroed out the credits and offered a different piece of tech in exchange which the AI wouldn't take. I backed out

Which is why MP should have never been added. That is really the only thing that is affected.

[quote who="JorgenCAB" reply="183" id="3549302"] Problem is that you will get even more people into this thread after the game is released when they realize how OP sensors are and how undervalued station sensors are. [/quote] ....still just this one thread.

Ship repair and ship upgrading are two things I'd change in GC3. While I would keep the slow healing on the star map to abstract the idea of "repairs while underway" I'd add repair to something shipyards do. Basically have a "repair" option when a ship is 1 hex away that moves it back into the construction queue with the cost being derived from something as simple as (manufacturing cost / total hp) to determine the manufacturing cost of each HP then use that to derive a cost. For exam

It doesn't seem much different than GalCivII's at it's core and that worked fine. I agree there are a couple things that could be added but just as it is GalCivIII is much better than Civ5, the next closest game in terms of gameplay, and that game has had many years and two expansions as a head start.

And personally I'm fine with sensors as is.

[quote who="Franco fx" reply="109" id="3548280"] Quoting AlLanMandragoran, reply 108 It is a science fiction game and we are always asked to turn off our denial of believability to some extent. The very premise of the game, the hyperdrive, breaks laws of physics more than the possibility of long ra

That is the most asinine thing I've heard all day and that includes someone complaining that SD was charging full price for a game still technically in beta.

[quote who="Tridus" reply="16" id="3412872"] Quoting Martok, reply 14 I too would like to be able to "enforce" my borders (in some way that doesn't require me to actually patrol/defend every single millimeter) -- during peacetime, that is. Obviously, it doesn't apply when you're at war with someone. I'd love to see Starbases able to exert a zone of control around themselves to do that. "This is my space, and you can&#

I'm split. I kinda want it, but to a certain extent it makes no sense to me so I don't want it. I'm wishy-washy. It's my nature.

[quote who="MarvinKosh" reply="37" id="3412258"] Well from what I can guess about Steam Workshop and how it integrates subscribed mods with the game launcher, there are still going to be mods that will not be compatible with each other. If I come up with a whole new tech tree mod for GC3 (and being honest, when I get a look at the tech tree I'm likely to say 'aw, hell no') and someone else comes up with a tech tree mod, then it's possible to subscribe to both

Also in the "hated it until used it" camp. I do still worry about a couple things but the benefits outweigh any "concern" I have.

[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="308" id="3412247"] Not sure if you're trolling or not. Chess - one piece moved per turn. The different pieces can move in different ways, but that's about it. All pieces have the same hit points, attack and defense power - that is, 1, 1 and 0. Every attack kills the opposing piece. Tactical combat in a game like GC3 - each ship can move a variable amount (even ships of the same type may have differing engine a

[quote who="mogthew" reply="306" id="3412212"] Quoting mattiscool555, reply 304 If you intend to make an argument for tactical combat my advice is to not cite chess, what is arguably the purest form of non-tactical TBS there is. Not sure if you're trolling or not Chess - Turn based, 1v1 tactical Combat - Turn based, 1v1 These two criteria are the most important to be able t

One more time: Steam does not affect modding in anyway what so ever. As to updates the only "problem" is an inability to revert to a former version. Updates themselves are still handled by Stardock, and if I'm not mistaken no longer even needs to folks at Valve to "flip the switch" on a patch.

I want to point out too that how mod-able the game will be is determined by developer and not Steam. The Workshop's main function is just to centralize modding effort more than anything, but that doesn't mean it's strictly the only place mods for games on Steam are. Paradox games are hugely mod-able and all my copies are Steam copies. Now-a-days the only trepidation I feel on the part of Steam is what will happen 20+ years in the future and how long games wi

If you intend to make an argument for tactical combat my advice is to not cite chess, what is arguably the purest form of non-tactical TBS there is.

[quote who="Tyrantissar" reply="299" id="3411802"] OK, I think I am up to speed. It took my 3 hours to find out how stubborn you people are, think outside the box people.... Why not be open minds a bit, go beyond the fact that there is tactical combat, there is a method you can include that will be SATISFACTORY Imagine a game that is Tactical, but you still maintain a nice short cinematic that will auto resolve. Q: HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? Well duh, the tac