naselus

Right, few points now it's not 1am on a work night: [quote who="KarlBar99" reply="30" id="3569807"] Your stance on the research aspect is showing that your managing to completely miss the point of LEP. LEP isn't there to stop you building a super large empire, it's there to stop you doing so quickly .[/quote] Which it does not do. At all. And never will. All LEP does, in it's current mechanical form, is punish the

So... you're saying approval-based LEP works fine, provided you completely change how approval works, and completely change how LEP works. And this is the stance of the people who LIKE the mechanic...

[quote who="KarlBar99" reply="2" id="3569785"] Another question, i've tried editing ComponentClasDefs.xml but adding a new class there produces an enumeration error. I think i've found the .xcd files that handle that but editing those seems to have no effect, anyone familiar with editing this sort of thing care to lead me through adding a new class to the relevant xml plus any other file entries i have to make for dependencies sake. <

The third line has some good stuff, but kinda of tails off. The third option is so good that 4 and 5 are kind of meh. In fact, other than the 5th option on the bottom line, all of Benevolent's top-tiers are a bit meh; the table as a whole has a lot of outright weak options, and this tends to get worse the higher up you go - in benevolent games I've often found myself preferring to go for lower-unlocks when given the choice, because in many cases they're more powerful than higher c

[quote who="Lavo_2" reply="32" id="3569787"] I've swapped all the improvement maintenance bits to colony maintenance. Haven't done the number changes; someone else will have to do that. [/quote] Thanks :) EDIT: Changed the numbers myself and have added for the 0.5 release this weekend.

[quote who="dansiegel30" reply="23" id="3569567"] Plenty of people in other threads have stated they dont have a problem with approval, so you arent speaking for the entire GC3 community, by any means. You have your opinion, as I have mine. But I've seen the dev opinions as well, and morale based LEP is simply not going away. It was introduced to GC3, and they want to make it work. Does it need tweaking, HELL YES. Just wait to see their plan.[/quote] <

[quote who="Deathwynd" reply="6" id="3569071"] Or it could be that there are lots of bits of code that do completely unintended things and thats perfectly ok because in the context of the game they dont do anything wrong when they arent implemented. In the context of modding all those unintended things are perfectly alright and are the heart and soul of what modding is. In the case of something implemented in the live game doing something unintended then yes its a bug, but us

[quote who="MichaelJanuary" reply="26" id="3569710"] Now, what is the relevance of all this to GalCiv3 again? [/quote] For when both ships are inevitably modded into the game and completely fail to operate on the same scale.

It apparently depends. Some people are able to just switch off the opt-in, and it'll download the different files. This is basically how it should work. However, sometimes steam just screws it up and refuses outright to validate properly. Then you're stuck with a re-install. It's been the same with each opt-in - people have reported both. The problem appears to be at steams end, so there's not much SD can do about it.

It's very weird. There's clearly nothing wrong with the xml - that would be flagged up by the more useful line-by-line debugger on launch. But it just doesn't work. It gets to the menu and bombs when you generate a galaxy. I've seen similar behaviour when I was trying to mod the Schema in the base-game folder. The game would launch and get to the menu, but bombed out horribly when it got to galaxy generation. Maybe check there to s

[quote who="adamb1011" reply="72" id="3569507"] Its not gamebreaking. Yeah, its OP - but there's so many other blatantly overpowered things that it barely stands out. Its certainly not the worst offender. [/quote] This. It's no better than some late-game colony uniques. It has taken two wonders to make it equate to two planets. That's nothing special when the only thing stopping you having those two planets instead is... an extra -0.2 approval. One

[quote who="Lavo_2" reply="29" id="3569443"] I started playing this mod recently and I must say it is amazing. Expansion actually feels like a challenge in general, and even on an Insane-Abundant map. I no longer feel like I'll just absolutely roll the AI due handily beating them in the expansion phase, as now I'm starting to feel the effects of over expansion, as I scramble to get my wealth planets up to speed. [/quote] Thanks! :)

[quote who="dansiegel30" reply="14" id="3569428"] I'm not staying approval is working well in its current condition. Some fundamental changes I see needed: .Approval needs to affect tourism income (fair and realistic) .Approval curve needs to be designed to harshly affect the "I'll just always ignore approval" scenario. -50%, -75%, -200%? I think people would then care to stay out of the low end (sad). The opposite can be done for the high

[quote who="KarlBar99" reply="64" id="3569388"] Your still hopelessly wrong in every possible way. I went through the files including approval, (i'll take your word on the modifier for approval as i'm not sure where it's located in the files), the maximum possible "productionpoints", (i'm going to use game code terms in quotes to avoid confusing the hell out of us both from now on), bonus prior to a DF is 75%, not 100% as you claim. I didn't include planet event

[quote who="dansiegel30" reply="10" id="3569383"] The steam thread replies from Brad (as posted by Rhonin, http://steamcommunity.com/app/226860/discussions/1/617336568065171463/#p1 ) seem to suggest that he believes tourism is a bit OP, and its a bit too easy to have enough money in the game. Having not mentioned any change to LEP, I am assuming they will simply nerf economics as I sug

[quote who="KarlBar99" reply="62" id="3569304"] Naselus: I was writing a big reply about opportunity costs on the he ideological tree's then i got to your second paragraph. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you miss-understood me the first time. So i'll lead you through this one more time. The death furnace does NOT provide a bonus to max manufact

[quote who="Waervyn" reply="7" id="3569242"] @Admiralwilly, I'm talking about base/raw manufacturing. [/quote] I vote that from now on, we all call 'manufacturing' in the sense of factories 'manufacturing', and go back to referring to Total Manufacturing (as in the total production) as Production or Production Points. It's too confusing otherwise.

Durantium refinery only adds 2 production now.

[quote who="KarlBar99" reply="6" id="3569186"] If LEP was based on percentage of colonisable planets in the entire galaxy controlled instead of number of planets controlled it would work much better.[/quote] It would scale much better. It wouldn't work much better though. You'd still be incentivised to expand as rapidly as possible, and then arbitrarily punished beyond a certain point - this just changes when the mechanical problem kicks in, rather than sol

[quote who="KarlBar99" reply="56" id="3569144"] @Naselus: Actually the death furnaces are balancing against the Arbitration center and Enlightenment Temple. they're the respective ideologies +1 ideology per turn buildings. I understand what your saying with them being slightly lower hanging fruit, but they're also on not on a line that's so universally powerful either. To rush the other two wonders you generally have to make a sacrifice somewhere else in the tree to pick up t

[quote who="dansiegel30" reply="4" id="3569130"] Economy is not scaled, as tourism is in no way affected by approval on a per planet basis....which it obviously should be. Watch expansionist players' tourism income grind to a halt with 0% approval, or when at war, or both.[/quote] But tourism is largely irrelevant tbh. Cash is too plentiful even without tourism income - as I say, when I started my first game of GC3, I was building what felt like the '

I didn't touch research costs. Techs simply seem more expensive because you've got about 30% less research. Also, I believe the devs did mention that they intend to make money more relevant once the AI can handle it; it's present meaningless state is largely to avoid AI's bankrupting themselves.

Sometimes, when the AI doesn't build it's because it's attempting to specialize the planet for buildings it hasn't researched yet. It saves the space instead. So when it's trying to specialize a planet for wealth, but hasn't developed any wealth buildings, it will just leave them empty and do a project while it waits. This is largely why I unlock markets, farms and entertainment from the start. Well, that, and the fact it's a bit ridiculous t

[quote who="hardcore_gamer" reply="4" id="3569016"] But even if it isn't, this makes no sense. If this were actually true then there would not even be a point in building a death star. [/quote] Yes, it's almost like the people who write Star Wars fiction are just making it up as they go along.

[quote who="KarlBar99" reply="51" id="3569019"] Naselus: Go check the files. The arbitration center and the Enlightenment temple are not faction wide and do not provide multipliers to raw output in the respective categories. The Enlightenment temple is really just a super powered, (as in better than double), Innovation complex and the Arbitration Center, whilst it does provide a flat bonus, does not provide a separate multiplicative bonus, does not get a non-standard adjacency multiplier