trims2u

it would be nice to have a pinned topic for each release related to obvious issues in the XML files. I'm not talking about balance or features, nor actual game code bugs. I'm talking about: (a) typos in things like descriptions, and (b) VERY obvious XML mistakes that should be addressed. For instance, in 4.2, the SubSpace Resonator (Benevolent) special improvement has a problem with the Per-Level bonus. It's a bonus to sensor power for all ships. However

That is was an intentional change does not make it NOT a bug. OK, then, call it a misfeature. Either way, it's something that breaks the overall design of the game, in a way that's neither intuitive nor consistent with the rest of the game. Notice that nothing was said about the other wealth improvements, and nothing was said about WHY the change was made. That's a big change in design for a single line with ZERO supporting rational. Heck, it's not even in the Balance sect

This has been going on for awhile, so I can't pin down when I remember first seeing it. Often times, I get more than one notification window at the beginning of a turn. I get a brief glimpse of them, but then only the very last one remains, and I can't ever see what it overlaid. The very last one is the only one I can make a choice on (if presented to me). That is, it appears that the notification window buffer / mechanism is getting multiple events, and rapidly di

One of the more annoying things about the current setup is that resources located in-system to a habitable planet are very rarely exploitable, in a practical sense. Given that Administration is a precious ability, it's not really worth creating a mining starbase for just a single resource, unless you have no other options to get that resource. Which means, on maps where you have a fair amount of planets, placing mining starbases next to habitable planets is a waste of Admi

But that makes no sense. I presume that the Tourism value is originally set to something like 0.01 - that is, you get 1% of your total influence area in tourism income. It can't be much higher than that, given what I'm seeing for values in the game. If the value in the improvement is a Flat value of 0.01 (which is what it originally way), then that's a 100% bonus (0.01 + 0.01), since you've doubled what the original Tourism value was. Which is why a MULTIPLIER of say 5%

Can't get the forum code to accept an XML snippet. So here it is, in Google Drive: TourismFixes.xml

I've been poking around the XML for the various Tourist improvements (up through Retribution 4.0), and they seem to have some major inconsistency problems. It's apparent in pretty much all of the Tourism improvements: Import/Export Center, Port of Call, Tourist Haven. plus all the various tourist Galactic wonders (Paxton's Emporium), etc. The one-per-player improves all do +1% per level to ColonyGrossIncome, just for that planet. That's ludicro

[quote who="AdamMG" reply="8" id="3778089"] If it works as intended, it is not a bug. You don't have to like it. [/quote] It's not working as intended, as that would require an indication thereof. There's no indication whatsoever that this is some kind of intent, and it makes little sense when - as indicated above - literally EVERY OTHER of the 5 don't work this way. The tooltip text is: "Increases a world's gross Income." For both MarketCenter and Shop

It's irrelevant for actual wording in the description (since we all know they're not authoritative in the least, and certainly not anything approaching complete). For instance, where does the +1 influence bonus on the Market Centre come from? It's not hinted at anywhere in the description. It's a design bug - everything else operates this way, and this particular instance doesn't for no reason. It's a bug because it fails to work as expected, given the rest of

My complaint is that it is a BUG - the behavior of the Wealth improvements is not the same as the other Production & Research improvements, for no discernable purpose. All the basic improvements provide their own type of adjacency bonus, which is the whole point of encouraging people to plan their planet layouts, and one of the Big Selling Points of GC3 (over GC2). Whether or not the wealth improvements should also provide an Approval and possibly a Population adjacency is ano

Folks, there are still 2 pretty obvious balance bugs that exist in Crusade-derived versions. These are long-standing, and really annyong that they're still there. 1. Market Center and Shopping Center economic improvements STILL don't provide a +1 wealth adjacency. These are the basic Wealth buildings, and the equivalent Research and Production buildings all have this adjacency. These should have the same kind of adjacency setup; otherwise, Wealth buildings a

Avatar/RG-278 corrections Issue: the mercenary ship Avartar-278 has text misreferences, and should not give a bonus to planetary raw production. In some places, it is references as "RG-278" while in others, "Avatar-278" The +5 bonus is to raw production, which is seriously, radically unbalanced and not in line with other Mercenary ship bonuses, let alone those for the 1st tier ships. Found in Patc

Ideology Point Generation Improvement Unbalanced Issue: the number of Ideology points that the various Ideological improvements generate isn't in any way scaled to the number of available planets to build them on. All are "one per planet" improvements, that leaves the number of planets on a map as the relatively low upper bound of how many can be built. This is further constrained by the general empire size limits Governments place on a

Generic Singular Economic Building Stats Issue: The set of colony or galaxy unique Economic buildings are not properly balanced and have wrong attributes. Base bonuses not in line with other Economic buildings (including other unique ones) Inability to move colony-unique buildings Problem is in Crusade & Retribution, but not in base game. Found in Patch: 3.9 <st

Generic Economic Building Stats Issue: The basic series of Economic buildings have strange adjacency settings and are not properly balanced. Adjacency types are not in line with the other main (production/research) style. poor progression in value Problem is in Crusade & Retribution, but not in base game. Found in Patch: 3.9 File Location: <p st

Generic Farm Improvement Balance/Text Issue Issue: For the entire Farm improvement series, there are two problems. Description text is confusing, and doesn't fit with what the improvement is doing. "These minerals boost the yield of farms when used as a fertilizer." doesn't make any sense for the actual Farm Improvement itself. Level bonus is non-existent. Found in Patch: 3.9 <

Since we don't have a coherent method for bug reporting, I'd like to keep this topic pinned. I'm hoping we can collect a whole bunch of quick fixes to get implemented. Please, list here three things for an issue: 1. Issues which are plainly a bug, balance, or text problem. Explain why. Mark what patch release you find it in. 2. The XML file where the problem exists. Give the full path name to the file, from the top GC3 dire

[quote who="SchismNavigator" reply="20" id="3757883"] trims2u: The core reason why we don't maintain a public bug database is because it would only be additional work for everyone in maintaining it. There was some momentum for fans maintaining an XML fixlist. But sadly that never got anywhere. If you want to take the initiative on creating something like that though I can present it to the team once you have something and maybe even help get other players using it. [/quote]

[quote who="Horemvore" reply="18" id="3757778"] Great posts, shame the only thing that devs seem to take from this disscussion is to fix one broken Lost Treasures improvement (That has been reported along with alot of others with similar issues many many times before) [e digicons]:([/e] [/quote] Which is exactly why I want the bug database public, so I'm not duplicating old reports (which I don't have the means to troll through old forum posts for). I've been a

Bad Balance: For ship modules, the Stellar Support module compared to the Environmental Support module: 20% increase in range, 20% increase in size, 2x in cost. That seems really dumb - same mass/range ratio as the older tech, at a cost of having to research a new tech AND pay 60% more in cost/range. That's seriously out-of-line. The more advanced Deep Space Support module and Stasis Field Generator modules are much, much worse; they require very a

Almost... can... grasp... problem... Nope, it's gone. Can you maybe update this question with a bit better English so we actually can understand what you're trying to do, what the problem is, and what, if any, error messages you see?

OK, this is in 3.8 now. BUG: For the Subspace Resonator-B improvement (special reward from colonizing a Precursor planet), the "level" bonus it receives is set to the wrong type. It's an absolute number, not a percentage. As such, it get 0.5 Sensor power per level, which is so tiny as to be ludicrous. The proper thing should be +5%/level to GLOBAL sensor power. UNKNOWN:

At lot of the special one-per-universe buildings are that way. They get no personal benefit from adjacency, and their benefit of having is the big bonus thing they provide, plus the adjacencies they GIVE. It does seem reasonable. On the other hand, a non-trivial number of the "one per civilization" buildings are somewhat broken in a parallel manner: they aren't the kind of improvement that they give adjacency bonuses for, so while they might get leveling bonu

Also, two more things I've run into. BUG: Why do the ordinary (i.e. non-unique) economic buildings have adjacency bonuses for Approval and Influence, but NOT wealth? The other kinds of basic buildings (production, morale, research, etc) all benefit from adjacency to each other. But not the wealth ones? That seems.... wrong. I'm OK with the economic buildings having Influence bonuses for the base building, but the adjacency bonuses

I'm gonna agree with Franton here on #1 as suggestion: desert and low-quality (4 or less) planets simply should NEVER have arable land on them. And high-quality planets with the bread-basket quantifier should have at least 4 arable land tiles. I also think #2 is a valid point, given that tiles are at a premium, and you can get resources a lot of ways besides having them on-planet. For #3, there already are a bunch of missions that allow you to effectively change re