... Wow the venom people have for Stardocks support team. Have any of you ever opened a support ticket with EA, Activision, or God help you Ubisoft? Kudos to StarDock for actually having a team that actually SUPPORTS their software.
Nope.... that only changes the currently building ship... it does not change the queue.. so once they build the Killer MK1 they would move to the previously queued Killer. They have the option to "always build latest Design" but on custom designed ships EVERY design is unique and "the latest" so there is no logic driven path for the system to know that the newer design is an upgrade of a previous design and not a brand new desig
In the Shipyards there is a button to "upgrade to current design" but this button only works with the stock game designed ships. If I design a new ship and name it Killer.. and then get better engines so I go and select Killer and redesign it to have the better engines and then name it Killer MK1 or something... there is no way to designate in game that this is an upgraded ship. So all of my shipyards then have to be touched to s
Would you suggest we start a new game... or should these changes update into games started in update 1 or 2?
There should be rare or super costly things that stay rare or super costly. Super techs to terraform dead planets would be cool but I think it should be crazy expensive. One way of doing this would be something like the TerrorStar from GCII Station that needs like 20 components before it starts working. These components require strategic resources... <b
tkt submitted: #ADC-602-91712
[quote who="Larsenex" reply="32" id="3630981"] Quoting naselus, reply 30 To be honest, if you scale exactly (i.e., map 10 times as big, movement multiplied by 10) then it's not the same pacing. It's just the same game. The only difference is lots of empty space and dead planets, which may as well not exist because
I've had very poor internet connection recently so It failed when I tried to open a tkt and send the save games on Sunday. I will try again tonight.
Sooo by and large I am liking the changes that 1.7-2 have brought this weekend. However, there are a few issues that what I would view as mission critical bad bugs. 1. Battle Viewer is once again not showing the actual outcome of battles. I have seen a lot of fights where the battle ends with a defeat, only to have actually won. Or where I lose nothing in the fight, only to return to the screen and have three ships va
[quote who="SergSVow" reply="49" id="3629790"] Please, tell me, how I can turn it off? I don't want automatic process, I hate when my queue is building how it will, I hate when my shipyards are building old constructors instead my newest ships that's I need, I hate when my constructors are flying through pirate bases or cosmic animals, and they - my constructors - was die, etcetera. [e digicons]>:([/e] I want manually manage my bases, how it was befo
[quote quoting="post"] I find I always take the same research decisions no matter which race I play. I always start the same way and always do the same things I'm wondering what else I'm missing? [/quote] May I ask what "same" things you are doing? I find that different races really do play significantly differently. I also find that if I am going to go for a
F so much F... The tech tree just feel small... I also miss the incramental improvements that GCII had with weapons engines and armor. There should be way more types of weapons and armors... such that the "doom Ray" or other end weapons are really special once you get there.
[quote who="rynebrandon" reply="27" id="3627748"] I was a little dispirited to see such a well thought-out post from Gauntlet be used as an opportunity for everyone to sort of say what they do and do not agree with. It really goes to show, we're nowhere with this game. It's not that I think anyone's opinions are bad it's just that it seems like none of us are able to separate what we see this game COULD be from what this game actually IS, and we, therefore spend post afte
The thing of it Seilore is that mechanical/functional fixes are constantly being done. Each patch has fixed something or added something. The game almost never crashes anymore.. in fact I've not had a crash since probably 1.4. I suspect that some of the crashes are computer hardware related more than software and will never fully be fixed. Multiplayer... I think this is somethi
[quote who="Larsenex" reply="18" id="3627583"] In D&D you can change alignment even as a player but at a cost. In 30 years of gaming I never penalized a player who strayed far. If a Paladin murdered the Goblin family because he felt he was preventing future deaths, there would be a severe removal of powers and a quest required to atone but he still got to do what he wanted. Original D&
This ^^^
Gauntlet, Selore, Thank you for replying. Have either of you ever played Dungeons and Dragons? When you talk about roleplaying the game and all. It looks like we can agree that the current system doesn't really work. I think the biggest issue I have is that it Locks you in on the FIRST freaking pick... and then as Gauntlet says doesn't really tell you what you are or w
Ok guys can anyone answer me these three... I'm interested in your opinions because these are questions I have on "should this be part of the game" that I cannot answer for myself. 1. How do you get the AI to do this as well? If the AI is not able to do this then it is broken or a "Gamey" mechanic. 2. how does having the option to go down all three paths improve the game play? I
[quote who="Larsenex" reply="7" id="3627415"] Lots of things I loved about GCII can and will come to GCIII it just takes time to get us there. [/quote] Yeah,... GCIII's 64 bit implementation gives is an insane amount of lee way for mods and internal growth
[quote who="Larsenex" reply="5" id="3627386"] I completely disagree with your thoughts on limiting war based on ideology or locking out ideologies completely. I would rather see your make choices but the other two trees cost 3x a much and each pick in the primary tree 'scales up' which in turn MUST be tied to map scaling. Thus on Insane maps you can get all trees but you must work for it. Remove the points given to buildings over time or allow the pla
[quote who="erischild" reply="3" id="3627369"] I agree with the first section and mostly agree with the third section, but I I have troubles with the X tech tree with X bonuses. I am not convinced there is truly such a consensus. Would you care to offer a suggestion as to what the two Xs are that are this general agreement? For example, many people seem to consider Malevolent to be the primary Ideology, when I find myself abusing the heck o
[quote who="Seilore" reply="1" id="3627321"] ( Ill finish this later sadly need to do other stuff with my computer at the moment) That's no fun, I guess I agree to disagree with this point. Why do you start a post and then not finish it. It's not fair..... [/quote] Sorry... I had an emergency come up and there is no.. save draft option. it has been updated
If there is one thing that is obvious in reading these forums, it is that we all have VASTLY different opinions on what is fun. One thing that I think we can all agree on is that it is more fun to have a challenging game that is challenging from the first turn to the last turn. It is not fun to have "won" the game by turn 100 and then spend 200+ turns "ending the game" to actually win. Here's some things that need to be acknowledge
[quote who="pshaw" reply="12" id="3626526"] Quoting ManiiNames, reply 9 Starbase building bit is changing in v1.7, hopefully out tomorrow. I do understand what you're talking about w the starbase building ships, I experience the same problem. One trap I personally fall into is the desire to make a zillion e
Honestly I've never cared enough to see where my economy in the game is coming from... but I think that excess production that would "drop off" after one turn is then turned into cash... Most of the time by late game I'm usually making over 15k a turn...