Werewindlefr

[quote]The message will only have a short trip between the satellites.[/quote] You forgot to factor in time dilation. Proper time in the satellite frame doesn't match with the earth/colony proper time. BTW, I've seen the subtitle: [quote]or proof that length contraction doesn't occur.[/quote] Rule of thumb : the likelihood that a couple lines written on a forum between two meals can overrule a century of thought experiments, building up of conj

[quote who="leiavoia" reply="47" id="3703890"] Even using empty tiles to produce food, it still boils down to a system with only one basic solution ("make enough food"). That still isn't an interesting choice. It's just bean counting maintenance. [/quote] You could tie growth to food surplus, stellaris/ES2-style. And you could color-code tyles for food production. One color is 1 food per tile, one is 0.5, one for 0 (the numbers are bulls

[quote who="Gauntlet03" reply="2" id="3703729"] Continuing on this... Planet Class/3 = Food + Extreme Planet Class/5 = Food + Occasional resource improvement = Total food supply Techs give some bonuses to the formulas. Rebalance the city food costs, etc. Lower pop to production bonuses since we've reopened so much land for development as factories etc. As desi

I mean, that would allow them to give different ranges, accuracies and firing rates within a same weapon type... which could lead to awesome stuff.

[quote who="erischild" reply="25" id="3701962"] I consider my initial buy-in to be finally paying off. I have enjoyed the game since Beta, but have been waiting for Brad to get hands on with the AI. It bothers me that so much in the mechanics has gotten nerfed in the name of progress, but it has been progress. All I can say is please Brad don't stop now. Thanks! [/quote] Same, except I wasn't enthused with the game at launch. For all the reasons that

I don't see how. Before the "square root" change, several small attacks have the same effect as a single big one with the same cumulated weapon value. That said, maybe it would be better if each weapon was treated independently? This could even open up some possibilities/varieties within a weapon category.

Which could be intersting, as long as great care was taken to keep large ships powerful as well. Then you could have small ships to overload defenses and large ships to munch on the HPs. This could be even more interesting with some adjustements to battle behavior AI, especially target priorities.

Is this calculated per-weapon or per-ship? It seems like it would make a swarm of small attacks more powerful than a single big one (since N attacks with power 1 would reduce the appropriate defense by N...) By the way, 2.8 opt-in is amazing and while I wasn't too much into GalCiv 3 at release, I really enjoy it now. The progress was incredible. Also, I'm getting my behind handed to me at normal difficulty, I need to learn how to properly optimize my start XD.

[quote who="Gauntlet03" reply="1" id="3596189"] Ummm that might be a good thing to help balance small hulls which are basically useless right now. But I see your point and small hulls could be balanced in many other ways. [/quote]The problem is that it's exploitable and counter-intuitive. You can double a ship's life expectancy by putting a single point of defense on it. It's also not limited to tiny ships either

I've mentioned a bug a while back and I'm writing a bug report to bring it up again, in the hope that it will get addressed at some point. It is not a small bug, for it skews all damage calculation and creates large balance issues. So the bug is like this : as long as a ship has 1 defense remaining for a type of damage, this type of damage will not hurt HP. A ship with 1 shield can soak a 1 million-strong laser volley and only lose its 1 shield without loss of structural integ

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="6" id="3557439"] The challenge of galciv III has more to do with focus rather than time. Generally speaking, people prefer to make features rather than fix bugs. [/quote]GalCiv 3 isn't what fills your fridge, IIRC. So you have the luxury of going Blizzard on this. Or apeing Amplitude Studio. GalCiv3 sales might not be bad, but they never hit the top 10 like some of those great outsider games we see from times to times (the aforementioned Amplit

[quote quoting="post"] I think there’s a special place in hell for people who spend 90 hours playing a game only to tell others that it’s not worth playing. [/quote]Okay, that's bad faith. If they don't spend 90 hours, then they're told "how can you judge a game you've barely played". For instance, I've played SotS 2 hundred of hours, and I've hated every single one of them. I was just trying to find a setup that would give

[quote who="Arumba" reply="3" id="3553386"] Perhaps a solution would be to allow for the player to make a change to the wheel, but then have it conditionally change for you. If you could say "This focus for now, when this building is done change to this focus". Then you are still making the same overall decisions, you're just able to do them *at the same time*, removing the necessity of checking on every damn planet every damn turn to make sure they are balanced just righ

I agree, but this topic was discussed to death already. This isn't going to change, like many of the deep gameplay issues that have been discussed on these forums.

Well, I'm not even sure we need complex control over ship combat behavior. But the basics aren't consistent with the system : we have weapon ranges, but the game doesn't really take advantage of it. If we have long-range weaponry options, a "stand-off" behavior seems to be a reasonable thing to have. The "kiting" problem can then be solved on its own* Currently, the way things are, it's like a WWI/II game with artillery that would move on its own to the frontline inste

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="61" id="3552365"] Because someone would have made a unit within infinite kiting ability and we'd be spending development resources endlessly dealing with that rather than focusing on making the overall game better. [/quote]And yet, SotS 1 managed it with limited resources. But that's beside the point, because it's not really about asking for tactical control, it's about the battle viewer behaving in a coherent and interesting way. Si

[quote who="peregrine23" reply="24" id="3552279"] I was a little worried about this until I saw the the AI running around with the sensor ships I designed. Now I figure all is fair. Also, those sensor ships are super fragile and cost you 1/2 your initial credits, so its not like it is a choice without risk or opportunity cost. [/quote]It's not about fair, it's about interesting. Something unbalanced can be fair - it can also make the game boring. Unbalance removes ch

Please fix the defense/hp bug. Tiny/small ships are strong enough as it is, they don't need a bug to make them stronger.

The effect is amplified by a Defense/HP bug I've mentioned a month ago and that hasn't been fixed. Considering it affects all damage calculation and seriously protects tiny/small ships, I'd think it should have been fixed *before* release, but I'm not even sure it'll ever be fixed.

I obliged, but with the large number of issues I have with the game this close to release, I did not give a positive review :/. I will, however, change it once ("if") I am satisfied with it. If "release is only the begining", then recommending the game is something I will do once the major bugs are gone, exploitable or tedious mechanics are worked out, and AI performs well.

[quote quoting="post"] My suggestion would be to make a drawback to 100%'ing your budget wheel. If my population's base production is 10/10/10 with 33/33/33 wheel, maybe make it 0/20/0 with a 0/100/0 wheel, and something like 0/13.5/13.5 with a 0/50/50 wheel. [/quote]But this would not solve the micromanagement issue. Paradoxically, removing the planetary slider altogether would reintroduce choices, because while still giving some incentive to specialize,

And fixing the way damage is applied to ships ? :p

[quote who="Illauna" reply="16" id="3542439"] You only quoted half my statement. I personally feel specializations should be untradeable. [/quote]I quoted the half that was relevant to the situation as it is now. I'm talking about the issue that currently *is* there, not about your mechanics suggestions.

[quote who="BuckGodot" reply="3" id="3542272"] To be fair, the questions are often maddeningly vague. I plan on asking a pretty concise and direct as possible about this during the next devstream. Hopefully it'll be concise enough to get through the chaos of a chat environment. [e digicons]:)[/e] [/quote]Except I instantly identified the issue the question was about, because there's so many threads about it on these forums. It's been discussed to death

I don't think it's bad, I think like for many ideas they've implemented in the game, they're just throwing it in the pot without wondering if it will integrate well with the rest of the game, or how to make it work well with the rest of the game. 2 weeks before release. For instance, if you trade a specialization tech before researching one, you can't research another. But if you do it the other way around, you get both... this is the sort of thing t