[quote who="Kataphraktoi" reply="5" id="3559574"] Those are far stronger than anything i thought of...just been spamming missile ships or basic carriers is all. [/quote] Spam carriers. Win the game. @Euklides - really interesting stuff. I just wish the game was varied enough to make it worth doing. The point about the support details not being visible anywhere is important if not at all surprising.
[quote who="Vidszhite" reply="23" id="3559100"] Given that the AI often acts on information it doesn't have (colonizing planets it can't see, claiming resources it has no knowledge of), this does not offer an unfair advantage. [/quote] Play on Normal difficulty. Challenging and above reveals the entire map to the AI.
FrogBoy, with all due respect, every forum I have ever participated in has had rude people and whiners. Every forum . Stardock's rude people are incredibly polite by internet standards. So he called your game "a steaming pile" on release, so what? He mocked the beta process, so what? Let it go. As a developer you have to allocate scarce resources across an ever-widening list of needs and you have to make a decision to release the game. If you don't do that you
[quote who="Larsenex" reply="17" id="3559045"] My response to the above is why put limitations on players in a single player game? [/quote] There appear to be two types of people playing GC3 (or, rather, commenting on the forums) Type X: plays GC3 as a 4X - finds the game too easy, sees removing the "exploration" phase of the game as an exploit that makes the game dumb. Type Y: plays GC3 as Spore - finds the game too hard, sees building huge sensor shi
In the distant future, the galactic "week" is equivalent to [insert your preferred time increment here]. There, fixed that for you. And you don't even need to download an update from Steam. [e digicons]:ninja:[/e]
[quote who="bigredmartin" reply="21" id="3557463"] Here i do not agree: lot of dead space, maybe, but it is a clean view. if you need details -> hover over it. if you want to have a "strategic" info -> rename your planet. i used to rename research-heavy planets R-Moon, economy worlds E-Vega 12 but that was GCII. i think now you even have a mouseover in diplomatic screen to tell you, that you are about to trade your 18+ world full of research buildings against a barely habitab
What ForesterSOF said (the techs are in the 4th category from the top -- sometimes labeled "Economics"). Additionally, for each planet go into the govern screen and move the slider up towards the top. This will negatively impact your production and research output, but increase your income. Also, research tourism.
Paul said during once of the launch-week devstreams that they'd like to have a UI element to show you the location of stuff (ships, planets, etc) but that designing that feature has been tricky. As a workaround, I believe if you exit the planet screen the map will be centered on that planet. Everything you need to know about a planet is buried in a mouse-over tooltip, (including the lore). I cannot describe how much I HATE that. The issue is that they're basical
[quote who="NightshadeXL" reply="42" id="3555843"] I know that. But you can't just say defraging doesn't do anything without proof. [/quote] Defragging doesn't do anything.
[quote who="EleventhStar" reply="4" id="3555661"] TBH i'd rather they make the constructor > colony ship upgrade more expensive or limiting in some way. [/quote] Since we're officially grousing, the "upgrade" mechanic in GC3 is so gamey and broken as to be considered entirely an exploit. It's impossible to balance and it completely obliterates immersion. "Upgrading" a ship should mean stationing it at a shipyard and using the planet's product
Governors will hopefully resolve most of the planet micro issues. I don't know if that's a DLC or what, but they talk about it a lot on the dev stream and so it looks like it's a feature in the works.
[quote who="DarkNeuron" reply="117" id="3553362"] We talked about that already. [/quote] (re: this whole thread) That poor horse... [e digicons]:waaaa:[/e]
[quote who="Magnumaniac" reply="2" id="3552871"] I think you've already mentioned the main reason why this couldn't be implemented - the need for a super-computer to process it all [e digicons]:)[/e] However, you also need to take into consideration that what we are seeing is a 2-dimensional abstract rendition of 3-dimensional space. That nebula shown on the map might not actually be directly blocking line of sight (or sensor) to the star just beyond it. <br
I think the objection to sensor boats comes from the sense that they eliminate the need for the "Exploration" part of this 4X game. I know it has been mentioned before, on dev streams and the like, but heavenly-bodies (planets, stars, black-holes) and nebulae should block sensors. If there was occlusion then it wouldn't matter if your sensor boat could see across the galaxy because there would be so much stuff in the way. And if you wanted to see what's on the other side of th
[quote who="Rhonin_the_wizard" reply="10" id="3551440"] It's explained right in the campaign description where the fleet came from. [/quote] Where did that honking huge ship that decimates enemies come from? Why is it so powerful? The lore exists (Brad was talking about it in his devstream playthrough). It's just not in the game.
Campaign was not part of the Beta process. They did the same thing with Elemental and I have never understood why Stardock thinks it's a good idea. Their internal QA has proven consistently incapable of picking up spelling errors, grammar mistakes, and other text-based bugs. Not knocking them, there's a ton of text in this game. Which is why having thousands of fans playing through the game is important. As far as, "where did that ship come from?" etc, they know all the a
[quote who="wbino49" reply="19" id="3550863"] I can't decide who's worse....fanboys or trolls..... [/quote] Why decide! They're both terrible!
[quote who="Tigonz" reply="6" id="3550456"] as long as you have a higher logistic fleet, they will take barely any damage, especially if even just one of your ships has missiles. [/quote] What makes carriers so powerful: A: instant health regen of spawning new fighters every battle. B: no logistics cost for ships on carriers (175 fighters for no logistics cost is silly). C: idiotic tactical decision-making. enemy fleets will always target the fighter
[quote who="Ashbery76" reply="9" id="3550446"] Yeah specializations should the personal ethos of that race.It's kind of like trading for communism while beign a capitalist. [/quote] There's actually a research specialization that is "Type of Government", so you can pretty much do exactly that in the game. Makes no sense. [quote who="Ashbery76" reply="9" id="3550446"] If there a way to mod techs as untradeable? The game could do with a balance mod. [
Trading for "specializations" doesn't make sense (and, like full galaxy sensor boats, I see it as cheating and I don't do it in my games). What they should do, IMO, is make specializations a tradeable resource . You can trade for the specialization buff for 50 turns (or until war is declared) and after the time runs out it needs to be renewed or the buff goes away.
Reviewers are reviewing the single player game. And MP is not the "main new feature" in any case. It's a shame that it's not working, but nobody is doing MP great these days. (Consider how a game like Destiny that's designed from the ground-up to be MP on the console no less has struggled with these same issues). It takes a couple minutes to launch the game for me as well. That's pretty annoying, but since I am not playing MP the game (for me) i
The battle viewer needs some serious love. Not only are there the ubiquitous camera issues: ships moving out of sight, cinematic camera pointing the wrong way, etc. The free-cam controls are far too sensitive and lacking a lot of obvious features (like the ability to snap to various views -- top-down, bottom-up, etc. with a button/key press). Then there's the problem of the strange (and disturbing) pauses in the action. The opening salvo of the ba
[quote who="Ryat" reply="14" id="3548927"] Basically, AMD is throwing all the info at the beginning down one core and causing a slow down vs Brad's Intel which properly spreads the work. [/quote] no. Brad was pretty clear that this is a problem with the game engine. The processor architecture is irrelevant to the multithreading issue that Brad highlighted. However, it might be that AMD is somehow particularly terrible at doing the calculation that the engine is single-th
Basically, Brad's response was "We are unaware of any such issues." And then some hand-waving about how even though the game is multithreaded, all the threads queue their pathfinding requests onto a single processor which Brad believed to be the cause of the slowdown. But then he said that he played with 100 AIs and didn't have any slowdown. So while the pathfinding issue might be the case, it could also be some other problem. It's likely some combin
it's a known issue. they've been trying to fix it for the last week or so, but apparently with no luck. you can try turning off "Trails" in the Graphics settings tab and see if that does anything.