[quote who="Illauna" reply="13" id="3542106"] Because of this expect that you will need to research first then trade if you want to research one. [/quote]That's awful game design. This is an issue that need fixed. You shouldn't have to shoot yourself in the foot because the game's mechanics are poorly implemented.
I've checked, the bug is still there in 6.0, although defenses no longer go in the negative. High-firepower ships will still waste a tremendous amount of firepower while not doing any hull damage. In other words, tiny ships can still soak entire volleys with weak defenses because the extra damage doesn't affect HPs.
My pet peeves : The focus sliders and the projects transform planetary management into an optimization math puzzle. The economy should be a transparent, grand strategy problem, not a set of equations to solve. The AI cannot even use them properly. Too many first order optimal strategy that are easily implemented... and could be easily fixed. Sensor buoy cargo ships, for instance. Starship balance. Starship HPs are so low compared to late game
[quote who="BuckGodot" reply="9" id="3540809"] Right behind the first question is "Is the game fun?" Well, that's pretty subjective but I'd say as long as the empire size penalty issue on maps with a very large number of planets is dealt with, then yes it is. Broadly speaking. The third question is, "Is the current feature set (as of Beta 6) a complete enough package for release?" Again, a subjective question, but, again, I'd say so.
[quote who="adamb1011" reply="18" id="3540926"] androshalforc is completely right, and unknown touches on the problem. Hyperspecialisation (building all labs/banks) is literally the worst thing you can do in the current game setup. It really should be the best, but right now it isnt. Its a huge design flaw in th
I hope the "1 armor/shields/PD can soak an entire volley" bug gets fixed before this beta is released, because it really unbalances the game in favor of small ships currently ...
[quote who="Bamdorf" reply="10" id="3540861"] Personally the ability to work colonies independently was a big step forward for GC3 over 2. Please don't go back. What moderates the "all specialization" idea is increasing the need for approval buildings(especially as one's empire grows), for influence buildings (def and off), and for farms (pop). [/quote]Population buildings only matter for money, so they were included in my "full econom
[quote quoting="post"] In playing, I have found that an effective strategy is to focus each planet on a one resource. This has allowed me to easily outstrip the AIs. By building only buildings for a single resource and setting the planet's governance to that resource once it is done the initial buildup, it becomes extremely productive to the point that I don't see any benefit to splitting it's focus. Am I missing something? Is there some strategy
[quote who="RSharaE" reply="6" id="3540037"] Hmm, unless Beta 6 is amazing, I think 3 weeks is a bit optimistic. There are still some major stability problems (crashing combat viewer in particular), balancing problems, and playability issues that need a lot of work. [/quote] I cannot say anything about the crashes - I don't really experience that many. But the rest of the issues you mention are indeed cause for concern from my point of view as well. Too many
I mostly think the focus slider mechanics is at odds with the way planetary infrastructure building works. To begin with, there are very few reasons not to set your slider all the way to 100% and super-specialize your planet. You basically decide if it's a production planet, a research planet or a money planet and then build everything towards that goal, because if you don't it'll be wasted. For instance, if you build factories everywhere on a planet, then you have to put
This bug is still in 5.3 (unless it's not a bug? Then it's a strange balance decision). I'm opening a ticket with a savegame.
[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="3" id="3536443"] 5hp is like 0, any ship 30 turns in ship kill a tiny in one blow. [/quote] Not if they have at least 1 in the corresponding defense, because of the aforementioned bug. Then it will be 2 blows, the 1 defense soaking the entire damage of a whole volley. HPs being too low is a separate, balance issue.
I think this is a bug, and it's quite unbalancing as it prevents a tiny ship from dying in one blow from a big one, which means a lot of wasted firepower. When defense against a damage type is at least 1, it doesn't matter how strong the attack is, no HP will be lost (and defense will go negative) This means that a 500-power laser attack against a 1HP/1Shield ship wiill still take the entire laser firepower 2 turns to destroy. This means t
[quote who="psychoak" reply="6" id="3535351"] Thrust to mass and whatnot would be nice, but it would definitely mean a different balance job because small ships are already pretty big compared to the big guys. Extra mass for stuffing things is baked into the hull size allocations. They go 25/50/75/100/250 on the mass and 10/30/60/100/200 for hitpoints. Logistics, unfortunately, do not follow that wonderful path, a huge hull being worth five tiny&#
That's a fat patch log for a hotfix. If it grows, it'll be... sort-of half a beta 6. Edit : [quote]Hull Reinforcement module[/quote] Is this a +HP item ? Because that would be really nice.
[quote]Improved the speed of research progress searches (developers said something about adding a hash table, i have no idea how hashbrowns make the game faster, but apparently they do)[/quote] Employees work better when you feed them, that's why. Otherwise you get a large turnover due to starvation, very nasty, many businesses make that mistake. [quote]Minor modificatiosn to the govenor strategies[/quote] "Added more typos... to the changelog" :p.</
Something has been bothering me a bit in the last few twitch dev' streams. The combat looks great and we finally have a complex system to play with (although, can we please have range-dependent bonuses/penalties, like accuracy or damage that degrades with distance, or the opposite ?). However, it looks like a bit too much is decided by the game in the player's stead. Which seems like a shame, as it closes door. Typically, this looks to be the case for ship roles. I don't t
[quote who="Bamdorf" reply="4" id="3529953"] The "trails" are unrealistic, sure [/quote]I mean, I don't see a lot that's realistic in GC3 to begin with, so contrails feel like a minor detail to me. GC3 is space opera, and space opera is fun because it cares little about scientific accuracy. [quote]If we really want to get into arguments about realism, a lot of what's going in the viewer will need to go[/quote] Or
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="5" id="3526450"]I don't think it's passive aggressive. It's pretty active. [e digicons];)[/e] I'm pointing out the hypocrisy. They don't really want these types of games. They don't really care. Their "issues" are just a fig leaf to give their cause some semblance of legitimacy. [/quote] I have to point out that this is a genetic fallacy. Unless you can quote her being caught red-handed having double standar
[quote]I could spend many articles praising Steam. It has been a tremendous good for both gamers and game developers. But game studios and publishers are also going to have to catch up to the concept that once your game is available, it's available and they have a responsibility to make sure their customers never felt like they were "chumps" for getting in early. One of the things Stardock is going to be doing over the coming weeks and months is emailing our Founders o
Nobody paid $100 for GalCiv 3, by the way (that package contains much more than that; which is why I bought it), and it hasn't actually started its life-cycle. It's not born yet. So, I paid extra money for the privilege of finding bug and errors? Good to know.
Because it means that being an enthusiastic fan of Stardock and buying the game really early, perhaps wanting to help out with rooting out bugs, balance issues and spelling mistakes, means you'll pay more money than someone who will buy it when the game is nearing release. You don't really get enjoyment for the extra money you paid, since the game really just reached the point where it's solid enough to be interesting. That said, I give them the benefi
One of the problems, in my opinion, is that tiny ships are still too strong. They're not fighters, they're actually more like light cruisers, power-wise.
[quote who="Space Voyager" reply="1" id="3517760"] It seems as though it won't work. If tactical combat would be in, there would be no need for a separate viewer - as you could just as easily watch combat play itself out in a tactical combat mode. I hope I'm horribly wrong though, I'd love to see some interactivity. [/quote]I don't think he meant actual tactical combat with player intervention. But there have been mentions by Frogboy and the Stardock people that GC3
Depth, not necessarily complexity. Complexity is a price you pay for depth.