[quote who="Borg999" reply="7" id="3635177"] Districts really? Someone needs to call up Sid and friends and remind them that the Civ series is a civilization building game, not a city building game... Furthermore, you have to build districts in order to have certain buildings. That is just ridiculous. Heck, even city
haven't played too much stellaris, but the pacing is definitely atrocious if i play it at the intended speed it's too slow if i play it without pausing, the UI becomes frustrating if i play it by using the speed accelration controls and pausing for commands, i spend more time playing with the time controls than i spend playing the actual game i'm maybe 5% of the way through a 1v1 on the smallest map. in that muc
i've seen some forums that autosave periodically
GalCiv3 Forums
recently, microsoft let a twitter bot "learn" from humans interacting with it and it became so offensive that Microsoft had to delete tweets it may be capable of inventing jokes ? if so that's pretty advanced i'm not asking for idiotic twit
i played a game where the AI just made 1 type of weapon and I was able to counter it by making just 1 type of shield and putting a 1 attack weapon on my ship. am I missing something or is the game intentionally balanced so that the AI can never win a fight if I spam defenses?
I played the first half a game on 1.4. i didn't notice any new bugs the resource changes seem to slow down my ability to win the game as fast as possible, which is probably a good thing if the doomsday timer is a formidable threat the threat level & diplomacy with the SK seemed a bit more sane and logical compared to 1.0 i tried leveling up some units that weren't paladins, but they died so quickly (i play on insane difficulty)
well one difference between FTL and SK is that I lose 90% of my runs on FTL whereas I win 75-90% of my games of SK depending on how much i reload due to taking unnecessary risks to win faster. hardest difficulty for both. if I really abused save/reload or just played slower/conservatively, I think SK would be impossible to lose.
you can try adding some stuff on the map that gives global buffs to armies when controlled. for example, there could be a place of power which gives the controlling player's forces protection from fire. then the player has to choose between conquering that spot on the map or trying to win the game with a disadvantage of the SK's forces being strong against fire magic. if there are many of these contentious spots every game, then there are more conflicts and more choice
more difficulty? bring it on [e digicons]:thumbsup:[/e]
these types of things are probably solvable just by changing some numbers: for non-hero units: paladin stats are too good. non-paladin stats are too weak. i usually replace every non-hero in my army with paladins for spells: can adjust casting costs (and/or research costs or rarity) so that we don't pick the same things every time for hero upgrades (and sovereign upgrades too): some branches are just better than others, so every game becomes the same for
well... if the devs aren't going to invest a lot into the game I do think some mods can fix a lot of the numerous balance issues which make the replayability not as high as it could be although if you have more fundamental problems with the game, maybe there's little hope the cool thing about SK is that you don't have to make the AI understand anything when you change the stats of stuff. it'll just work
the metarealm is really just a measure of how long people's games were. the scoring doesn't make any sense have you tried kayla with rapid outpost spam / shard-grabbing + paladins + cloud walk? the last time I played (1.0), that strategy could win any layout without much difficulty
there should be more stuff that makes the games & strategies different from one playthrough to the next the maps have variety, but there's not enough to make me level up sovereigns/champions in different ways based on what's happening
SorcererKing Forums
to be honest, i'm not a fan of most of these alternate victory conditions. they're all just variants of 'spend 1500 mana to do something', because everything (outposts, mountains, logistics, destiny's favor via sovereign skills, etc.) is purchasable with mana. the alternate victory conditions need to be things that actually force the player to play differently in the first 100 turns, not in the last 10. just leisurely spending mana to do stuf
real intelligent AI (not just components that don't coordinate in any optimal way) is a very hard problem simple modding can influence the scripting of individual components, but to actually write something that assesses the entire gamestate and decides what to do (like a "player"), you kind of need an API (eg. BWAPI) or SDK (eg. civ4) even with those tools, it's hard to imagine how there would be a good AI that gets written for free. only starcraft 1 got stuff done 10
GalCiv3 Forums
exponential growth is always tricky to balance with cheating i think some solutions in other games have been to add more bonuses at different stages of the game for example, in the early game the AI can start with bonuses that help with the first few expansions and research in the later game, the AI can get bonuses that help with military and improvements it ends up being more fun that flat bonuses from the beginning
this type of game becomes completely useless the moment build orders become the optimal way to play the focus needs to be on adapting to random maps and reacting to what other players are doing or else it will become solved way too quickly randomness is a tricky thing to get right, especially when there's very little that can be actively done to disrupt other players' plans. in a normal RTS i'ts much easier because fog of war and lots of mana
SorcererKing Forums
hearthstone is about paying for variety you can still win a lot without spending hundreds of dollars, but you'll be stuck with very few options for what you can play i think most card games are the same way it doesn't end up being too unreasonable because only the people who play the game a lot would need to spend a lot of money on it
I think the game would find a larger audience if people actually cared about whatever world it was set in. few people know who tandis or galor or peregan is, and even after playing this game for 100 hours and liking it I'm not really interested in learning more about them it's kind of irrational, but people would probably be more attracted to the game if the characters were recognizable (like if they used the Lord of the Rings universe instead of the Elemental o
yeah. the score system is awful :(
the pikeman thing is probably what happens when you heal a multi-stack group from 1 back up to 3, but it leaves the graphics of 1 until something happens to change the graphics again
there probably should be some penalty, at least on higher difficulty levels at the same time i feel there should be a way to revive the non-heroes. part of the problem with the game is that whenever someone dies i just replace them with a paladin. then 40 turns later i have nothing but paladins + heroes.
fixes (excluding balance/bugfixes): duplicate layouts in random maps should be an extremely rare event. i think right now the resources are somewhat random, but the chokepoints and stuff aren't allow keyboard camera control in battle. don't reset the camera when leveling up cities show where enemy units are travelling (within my borders) after I end my turn Sorcerer King should make more armies instead of sending multiple stacks of individu
i think it's bugged sadly there seem to be many spells that either don't work or don't work as advertised
pioneers are really strong i was just playing a regular game expanding leisurely (by the standards of insane + fast doomsday). by the time i claimed almost all the shards i noticed it was only turn 48. i never had much of an army and it stayed near my starting city the entire game. i customized kayla with chant of vitality i picked kayla to try out the stuff that makes land better, but she gets 2 very early abilities that allowed this situ
GalCiv2 Forums