BuckGodot

The more I think about this, the more I dislike it. Mostly because of the way things are grouped together in the tech tree currently. Want to be able to create both Economic and Research treaties? Sucks to be you, you can only choose one to create. Want to be able to fully upgrade all Extreme Worlds? Sorry, your scientists want to take a vacation from all of this, you can only choose two to fully "fix". Want to be able to create different kinds of alliances

[quote who="Niedzielan" reply="4" id="3538697"] What it seems like is happening is that when you create a faction, it basically copies the Default faction in FactionDefs. This includes not only credits, but starting ships, etc. When the game updates, the .faction file still contains the old stats from the previous version. Copying the custom faction copies that, rather than applying the same changes to a new Default faction. A small change like credits just makes it an annoyan

FWIW, I started a new game in 5.3 with a custom faction I built in 5.1 and I'm still getting 3000 at the start of game that I got back then. Even when I did a copy-n-edit of that faction in 5.3. However, when I created a brand new custom race in 5.3, it had the 5000 credits it was supposed to have. So something isn't getting changed as the game is patched/updated.

[quote who="Larsenex" reply="6" id="3538685"] Personally I like that the Specializations are blocked out after chosing one. You do know that if its a spec you do not have you can always trade for it from an AI. [/quote] [b]IF[/b] you have enough AIs to trade with and [b]IF[/b] they didn't research the same thing you did and [b]IF[/b] they are far enough along the tree that they research them. :p And, yes, this is gonna massively suck for Extreme Worlds.

Actually, as I look deeper into the XMLs, I don't even think the dummy tech or the dead end tree I mentioned in my previous post is necessary. Taken from a random XML: TerranAdvancedConstruction AdvancedConstruction TerranAdvancedConstruction_Name Terran_Tree <ShortDescription

[quote who="kestlstw" reply="2" id="3538660"]The only reason this is unbalancing is if the game is designed to make is so and if I can't mod the game to play the way I want to it seems I've wasted my money and GalCiv3 will get a very negative review.[/quote] It shouldn't be [u]that[/u] hard to mod it out. Just glancing at the XMLs right now it looks like there is a bracket called " ". Wipe that out of your tech trees in your "home mod" and

I have a major problem with this as well, now that I'm away from the devstream and taking a [u]very[/u] good look at the tech tree. The problem isn't so much for weapon techs, which I can see the argument for. but for the [b]NUMEROUS[/b] techs all over the four tech trees that are multiple choice. The one Paul already admitted might be a problem is the extreme world ones where most factions would only be able to fully restore two types of worlds. That is going to cause a [

[quote who="ColMitchell" reply="20" id="3538656"] I have an issue with allowing people to change the star names. People paid extra to get the honor of naming the stars, so people should not be able to change the star names. Also if you have an issue with the star names, just suck it up. It is no different then the planets being named after Greek/Roman mythology. What if you are Muslim or some other religion, or an atheist, are you going to go cry and try to c

[quote who="Franco fx" reply="11" id="3538604"] Abundant habitable planets on an insane map would have to be well over 500,and that could be a low estimate. [/quote] Closer to 2000, actually. ;)

[quote who="trims2u" reply="3" id="3538020"] Notice that it's a PERCENTAGE adjustment penalty, not a BASE penalty. So, a -20 penalty for having 20 planets can be offset by having one basic morale building on each planet. It shouldn't need to be tweaked too much, except maybe to be slightly less than directly linear. Maybe the 2/3rds root or something like that. At that level, 100 planets would be -20. [/quote] The main problem will be folks going for conq

This game requires Steam libraries and tools (otherwise known as Steamworks) to actually run. Good luck getting it to work [u]without[/u] Steam. ;) Besides, it can be run offline for eternity after the initial authorization. So what's the big deal? Don't want to be online for 99.999% of the time? Great news, you won't need to be! :) ====== Now the windmill [b]I'm[/b] personally tilting at is OS X/Linux support. It&#39

Ideology is working as intended for me. Did you start with a brand new game when the new opt-in patch came out? There might be a lingering bug [u]within[/u] your savefile that the opt-in patch is causing things to get messed up. If you did start with a brand new game under Beta 5, Opt-in Patch 2, I'd send a ticket to SD as that will help them track down what is going on. :)

Approval Relics are working, after a fashion. Once again in 5.2, I saw my approval jump up after I hooked up my first Approval Relic. [b]HOWEVER[/b] the xml for Approval Relics is still saying "Approval" instead of "Goods & Services" (or whatever the exact language is). Whether this is causing issues in implementation, I have no idea. But it wouldn't surprise me if it is a bit buggy because of it.

[quote who="faistaff" reply="11" id="3537080"] Using the 5.2 opt-in, 354 turns in. Can't declare on any of the 8 races (4 major, 4 minor). [/quote]is this a brand new game or a continuation? That might make a difference. ========== Just started out a brand new game and haven't run into enough races to comment on this yet. Though I now notice the Time Out limit is now 50 turns instead of 100.

The idea that players should be forced to go to port to upgrade ships comes up from time to time. The overwhelming consensus from players, outside of a few die hards on the issue, is: [b]ABSOULTELY NOT[/b] :). For many reasons, including micromanagment, balance, and that good ol' fashioned concept of "fun". Micromanagment and balance concerns arise because this would inevitably encourage even more starbase spamming, this time just so people could upgrade ships hundreds of tile

First off, I must have missed that bit from last weeks stream. But I did have some connection issues, so it might have happened then. So thanks for the info. As for the rest, I'm not "dissmissing" the problem. In fact, I was one of the first, if not [b]THE[/b] first to bring it up. And I'm certianly not defending them over this. What I [u]am[/u] doing is puttting this issue into perspective. Unless we want the game released in July or August (Ju

Being able to rename stars in-game is a polish point that is coming eventually, according to last weeks stream.

[quote who="econundrum1" reply="6" id="3536596"] doubt reviews will fail to notice or mention it.[/quote] Gamers will whine about anything in reviews though, as the so-called controversy in regards to Pillars of Eternity shows. Will it be perceived as a negative? Sure. I'll agree with that. Game breakingly so? Not remotely. This is something that can be addressed by a patch post-release, worse comes to worse.

Which stream was this mentioned in? I don't recall hearing it last week. And as one of the first people to bring this up, while I'd be disappointed that it couldn't be addressed by launch, calling for the Yor to be removed is [b]EXTREME[/b] overkill, as ultimately all but a couple of colonization events are mostly fluff In regards to this issue. There's only a couple where it matters mechanically, IIRC. Yes, it would be great to be addressed, but calling it

Might be worth it to send that xml finding along to the devs, androshalforc, so they can see if something unintended is going on. Or, as you suspect, it's being applied in a legacy fashion and therefore unstable. :) One thing I [b]do[/b] know is that Approval Relics weren't working at all in Beta Four. Submitted a ticket on it and everything. So it's possible that it was fixed in a partial manner.

The graphics are [u]already[/u] leaps and bounds ahead of where they were in GC II. Just fire it up and compare/contrast if one doesn't believe me. ;)

EDITED POST NOW THAT I HAVE SOMETHING NEW TO ADD INTO THIS ONE. Upon further testing, it is a little curious though. I decided to try to figure out the exact mechanics of what was going on. Not counting my capital, which has a higher baseline G&S, my current Goods & Services is 10. I have an large empire penalty of 16%. I have two approval relic modules installed and they [u]should[/u] be giving me a 20% bonus. But it appears that they are only gi

[quote who="androshalforc" reply="12" id="3534899"] Quoting Hamilmac, reply 10 Since they don't show up on the planet Approval pop up, I can't tell if the game is processing the bonuses to not, but now I don't think so. according to the xml's approval relics p

[quote who="androshalforc" reply="19" id="3534900"]as near as i can tell the approval relics dont work according to the xml's they provide an 'approval' bonus which was gutted in B4 (possibly B3) [/quote] I just checked and Approval Relics [b]ARE[/b] working in Beta 5. Proof (clicking on the pics makes it more obvious): Just before installing a module for an Approval Relic: [img]http://i.imgur.com/n1H15bd.jpg[/img] One turn after ins

FWIW the comparable lists in GC II were in fact restricted to planets one had discovered. :)