[quote who="exelsis" reply="61" id="3613842"] Well, nobody seems to beat the Godlike with tech set to very slow. Is this because the great players only play insane and don't want to take 7 months or does it actually favour the AI? [/quote] It's just because no-one plays with slow research, because the setting doesn't work very well. The slowdown is pretty much nothing if you specialize planets.
[quote who="Icemaniaa" reply="57" id="3613677"] With starbases implement the changes Naselus has made where starbase range is massively larger and they can have multiple functions (e.g. economic and mining) which would both reduce starbase spam and limit the bonuses that can applied to individual worlds. [/quote] A note of caution on that - bigger SB ranges might be wildly unbalanced for the really small maps. Having range modified by map size would
[quote who="leiavoia" reply="133" id="3613404"] Agree with this. While i wouldn't call it per se "stupid", i'm voting for a "buildings determine output" economy in future expansions. [/quote] One thing that might be interesting is changing buildings to add a flat bonus AND a percentage bonus, but reduce production or food by the same amount as the flat bonus. So, say, a factory would give +1manu, +15% manu, and -1 production. This simulates the fact
[quote who="grandgnu" reply="4" id="3613597"] Thanks, I'm just wondering if the developers have changed it since launch in any significant way so I don't have to mess with game files? [/quote] Pacingdefs.xml hasn't changed since release - so the game pace setting just increases production, and the research rate setting just gives a % modifier that is added to the % modifiers from techs and buildings ('very slow' research is equivalent to ne
[quote who="Go4Celerity" reply="11" id="3613672"] I think I asked that question in the twitch chat. Paul's response seemed rather.... unsure. I really don't think he knows whether thrusters buff evasion or not. Sad, because I don't believe they do and having a design option that is underpowered to the point of uselessness is worse than not having that option at all. [/quote] They don't. As Excelsis says, all they do is clos
To be honest, the 'get off my lawn' thing only appears to influence them for about ten turns and then they return anyway.
Have replicated. Will investigate this weekend. [quote who="Syntax_VI" reply="689" id="3613230"] Hate to say it but I agree. Carriers are too weak now [e digicons]:D[/e] why not go the other way and allow for more per module now? Always nice to see lots of little fighters buzzing around when you bring a big carrier into battle. [/quote] I'd rather that carrier modules were 1 fighter a piece, and you added th
They may just not be picking the tech. Carriers are OK now they only get 1 fighter per module. I may need to buff them a bit by giving the fighters some filler components, actually.
[quote who="rlared12" reply="52" id="3613161"] Another possible fix is to have less credits at the start of the game. You can currently run in the red for quite a while before you run out of the current 5000 credits. [/quote] This. I'll usually run a loss for most of the opening 200 turns.
Get off my lawn is present for me in 1.5.2. It's not in the diplomatic trade interface, it's in 'let's talk about something else'.
[quote who="Syntax_VI" reply="680" id="3612806"] thank you! I kept poking around in naselus' files, and didn't see it, good find! so, if I removed the line: true would the AI start building again? [/quote] No, you'll need to add trhe actual names of the modules. I'll be adding an updated version of the file lat
[quote who="mortili" reply="679" id="3612782"] AIStarbaseGovernorDefs.xml the governor simply doesnt allow the AI to build defenses on the Starbases^^ [/quote] Ooooh, that's new. As is fleetgovdefs. Think I'll have a poke around with those...
[quote who="Rectunator" reply="671" id="3612590"] Edit: Well it was solved by switching the dl location. Some sort of nexus server related problem. [/quote] Yeah, the Nexus is just being really bizarre right now. I've re-uploaded, and it clearly has the file with the correct size, but it told me the new one was hidden, then let me download, then corrupted the DL... I think the problem is something their side and will hopefully be cleared soon. &nbs
Updated to 1.5.2: [quote] 1.5.2 * Set wheel to be released on Colony Capital (since the bureau doesn't exist) * Removed UItext.xml. It wasn't worth having to reconcile it every time a new patch comes out. Seriously, it's huge. * Quadrupled constructor module cost and doubled the number of points you get to reduce SB spam. * Doubled colony module cost, too. * Doubled Starbase Defense Module values. * AI no longer uses
I've found it's actually pretty good at fleeting, and I still think the engines on ships thing is more a matter of the player being able to stack engines far beyond sense than the AI doing it wrong - 2-3 engines on a ship should be 'right', which is why the base game BPs have that sort of level, rather than the 10+ that late-game huge hulls often have. Other than that, I pretty much agree though. The AI is good enough overall now, but not spectacular. There's a few really
[quote who="Rectunator" reply="668" id="3612345"] Any idea when the next version comes out? [/quote] Either today or tomorrow. I think it'll basically be the above set of changes, but I want to see how the AI does with them so I'm running a couple of soaks.
I don't have the precursor DLC, so can't do much on that side; I'm loathe to include DLC stuff in the mod anyway in case I release something SD are trying to sell. Also can't find this speed event that you mention, so I'd assume that's another DLC thing - I've certainly never had it pop. I'll look at the Altarian thing. The Krynn will be getting a release to themselves at some point, as will most of the other races, so I'm not o
Sneak Peak at the next lot of release notes: [quote] 1.5.2 * Set wheel to be released on Colony Capital (since the bureau doesn't exist) * Removed UItext.xml. It wasn't worth having to reconcile it every time a new patch comes out. Seriously, it's huge. * Quadrupled constructor module cost and doubled the number of points you get to reduce SB spam. * Doubled colony module cost, too. * Doubled Starbase Defense Module values
There was a lot of clamour for MP back in GC2. It was never going to be very popular, though. Very few recent 4Xes have a particularly active MP scene, and those that do tend to be mechanically very simple so that balance is easy to achieve and games can be fast-paced and short between very few players (which is why, since the general decline of PBEM, most MP-centric 4Xes are browser-based pay-to-win models). This is the exact opposite of GC3's strengths, which are the capacity to have hu
[quote who="Seafireliv" reply="17" id="3612002"] That said, i never Reload if I get a bad run, I stick with whatever the outcome is. Do you always Reload until you get the result you want? Be honest now. [/quote] You've asked this of players who beat high difficulty a few times, but to tell the truth I've not encountered a single situation in GC 3 at any difficulty where I've needed to save-scum. On the bi
I've not actually gone to see it yet, but I'm expecting typical JJ Abrams fair. He's very good at taking one or two other movies, plagarising them like crazy, pasting lens flare all over them, making them fun and then saying the word 'homage' as much as possible in interviews so no-one calls him out over the lack of anything original. I expect it'll be entertaining, but I'm not exactly hoping it'll change my life or have a massive impact on cinema. But the preq
[quote who="adamb1011" reply="10" id="3611849"] Yet another boring "godlike is ez, i am amazing" post. [/quote] And your response was yet another 'if it's too easy, then it's your fault for playing it wrong' answer :P I'd kind of hoped we'd moved beyond this whenever someone points out balance problems and reached a stage where we can discuss the problems highlighted instead. For example, the answer to the Thalan tech tree being absurdl
I suspect it's unintended - since the logistics cap would ensure that fleets were always smaller than 64 ships, it was likely thought 64 would be a 'safe' integer size to pick that would be more than enough.
How fast is the RAM?
[quote who="eviator" reply="5" id="3611149"] With the low pre-1.5 growth rate, I found it difficult to sustain invasion wars on large maps. Now it's easier. I never need hospitals. Maybe a middle ground is appropriate. [/quote] This. The high growth rate offers a nice opportunity to make invasions more grindingly brutal. Now they just need to make it so invasions actually fail from time to time.