[quote who="Avatar137" reply="33" id="3620165"] Is this how you feel you're going to get Stardock to listen to you? [/quote] Personally I feel constructive criticism is more useful that white knight fanboyism.
[quote who="Avatar137" reply="33" id="3620165"] I think this should have gone on the Founders Forum and then pubic after release. [/quote] Perhaps then Stardock would be accused of censorship... he paid $100 for the game he's entitled to an opinion. Stardock hasn't asked anyone to sign an nda it would seem they can take a bit of criticism especially if it's merited which I'm not saying it is or isn't.
[quote who="naselus" reply="11" id="3619994"] Dear God, you know something's seriously wrong when Larsenex sides with the critics. [/quote] LOL ... sorry Larsenex. [quote who="Larsenex" reply="9" id="3619983"] Now the notes in 1.6 say some things that can affect the game, namely not selling Military techs unless the ai likes you [/quote] Are the 1.6 patch notes actually out, I haven't seen them?
[quote who="Empress_Fujiko" reply="34" id="3619858"] So if you wan't support, you have to offer a clear vision of an alternative system which really offers more fun to everyone, not just to your taste. Now hit and convince me! [/quote] As far as I'm aware there's only one person when it comes to Gal Civ that someone so inclined might want to "convince"... and it's not you Empress_Fujiko. I originally posted to agree with the OP, I felt t
[quote who="stevezar" reply="31" id="3619849"] I don't think we really have a vocabulary to describe why Go seems so difficult to program compared to other superficially similar games [/quote] According to the Go wiki page the number of possible Go games is vast (10 to the power of 761 compared to chess which is 10 to the power of 120) that's why the likes of Kasparov was beaten by AI in the 90's and top draw Go players only now I would think.
[quote who="BuckGodot" reply="29" id="3619842"] Yes, but this analogy is flawed as it presumes that tech trading is of little value to people and that what would be recieved in return would be amazeballs. [/quote] The fact that many people value tech trading isn't in dispute the values of money I used were just to show how one system could overall be more worthwhile in having and that most would be happy to make the exchange for despite "losing something" they like. &nbs
[quote who="stevezar" reply="26" id="3619830"] Yes this thread is about taking something away...just look at the title "Get rid of tech trading". [/quote] You're just reading the title, OP is suggesting it be replaced with something else and used Civ 5 as an example. Strictly speaking if I took 5 dollars from you but gave you a thousand euros back I would be taking something away from you still but what you'd be getting in return is obviously bet
In my latest Let's Play I play a Custom Terran faction (Terran Resurgence) that has literally the worst possible racial traits -2 in every single category that can be selected! Godlike/Suicidal difficulty. [video]https://youtu.be/Fr5j_I3Fcms[/video] It's now complete you can watch it from start to finish from the playlist link below. Playlist: <a class="ot-anchor aaTEdf" dir="ltr" href="https://www.you
[quote who="erischild" reply="23" id="3619808"] No, I am not serious. I seldom am completely serious, I just sound preachy. Also, I usually have points in my jests. [/quote] Can be hard to tell in writing if someone is saying something in jest or sarcastically unless you really know them or they make it obvious. Quotes "" and winks can help ;) :) ;) [quote who="erischild" reply="23" id="3619808"] By the way, I actually registered to YouTube so
[quote who="erischild" reply="19" id="3619799"] I play Civ 5, a lot. Civ is my other addiction. The lack of tech trading is one of my least favorite features of that game. [/quote] I'm sure there are many others. [quote who="erischild" reply="19" id="3619799"] If computers can play Go, they can manage something simple like GalCiv. [/quote] Go is incredibly simple compared to Gal Civ, are you serious???
[quote who="Seilore" reply="17" id="3619795"] Why would you restrict one players game, when the option already exists at the start of the game to turn off both tech trading and tech brokering? [/quote] It's not about taking something away from people it's about having a system that works that people find enjoyable to play and although you and others may like the status quo and like certain aspects of the existing system a lot of people don't. If you read
Completely agree with OP on tech trading. It's time consuming, creates tons of micromanagement and it ultimately becomes mind numbingly boring and on top of that the AI simply can't cope with it. GC3 has 300+ techs and lacks a good UI to make trading easier though with that many it would always involve tons of micromanagement. Some previous posters have suggested disabling tech brokering or turning off tech trading. Although that alleviates issues with
I thought Icemaniaa's questions were excellent, and I hope the issues he highlighted are given the high priority they deserve in future patches etc.
[quote who="naselus" reply="3" id="3617333"] So basically, if they re-scale the relations slider to 100 to -100 [/quote] If it's not possible to mod the scale is it possible to divide the modifiers by 10 to produce the same result?
[quote]I've read some posts on these forums and watched YouTube videos and read the manual. I've tried many tactics; colony ship spam [/quote] Stick with the YouTube videos... [video]https://youtu.be/Fr5j_I3Fcms[/video]
Are people expecting tactical combat with invasions or something I don't think it will ever happen not sure I'd want it personally (more micromanagement) so I think Stardock were right to delay doing anything to it when there are areas of the game that have more serious issues/need lots of attention. Planetary invasions work (the pop bug was fixed) other than to add flashy graphics and maybe some tool tips it's fine imo, defenses could be increased with a ti
For those interested Gamespot posted a video showing the Mercenaries expansion in a bit more detail link below. Sadly it doesn't show Torian/Arcean traits/abilities (hint Stardock :p ) [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mINz8hS-XkU&ab_channel=GameSpot[/video] I'll also highly likely be doing a Let's Play for GC3 Mercenaries within a few days or so after release on my YouTube channel Macsen Lets Plays <a href="ht
[quote who="Icemaniaa" reply="75" id="3615291"] Macsen thanks for putting the Terran Resurgence on the Steam Workshop, I'll continue to watch the series until the end. Out of interest I played a game with them this evening (Huge, abundant, 9 opponents), the only change I made was to an ability (to Intuitive). The end result was a Turn 51 Alliance Victory while being dead last on the power charts. Apart from what I've posted before, this time I focused on diploma
[quote who="exelsis" reply="70" id="3614455"] Because virtually every patch includes improvements to the AI. [/quote] If you count the Betas as "patches" then Beta 6 (from memory) and patch 1.4 saw AI improvements, that's 2/12 "patches" hardly virtually every patch... If any of the others had improvements they were incredibly minor, not noticeable at all imo. GC3 could certainly benefit from Brad Wardell/Frogboy giving it some attention (he's working on A
[quote who="Icemaniaa" reply="60" id="3613839"] Macsen that looks to be a really fun series to watch, but wow what a good start! You might need to reload a few times to get a really bad start! [/quote] It definitely crossed my mind in video #2 I was thinking about it but this wasn't my 1st attempt I'd done a couple test runs and the AI had caught me out I didn't realize how early it can DoW, I was more used to turn 70 odd not 40 ish. An early DoW is a
I haven't posted in this thread yet but with all the talk about AI and game difficulty recently I thought I'd give myself a potentially pretty tough challenge... So here's a link to my new Let's Play Terran Custom Race -2 ALL Racial traits yep everything Cargo Space, Diplomacy, All Production types the lot! Godlike difficulty. [video]https://youtu.be/Fr5j_I3Fcms[/video] Daily updates on: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/Macs
[quote who="eviator" reply="10" id="3611568"] This is a good point. A 25% increase on 0.1 (or whatever it was) is much less beneficial than the same percentage increase on 0.3 [/quote] True, but it many cases you'll hit the colonies pop cap before having the industry to even think of building hospitals. Before even planets with very few tiles significantly benefited from the hospital line now they don't need it as the growth rate is high enough to hit the pop c
[quote who="adamb1011" reply="7" id="3611376"] I actually think this is really good. [/quote] I must admit I am leaning towards liking the change. [quote who="eviator" reply="5" id="3611149"] With the low pre-1.5 growth rate, I found it difficult to sustain invasion wars on large maps. [/quote] I would often try to prevent nearly all planets from hitting there pop cap previously by sending transports to them to skim off the top, helping to sustain i
[quote who="exelsis" reply="8" id="3611336"] Proof of what? That single battleships are better? That should be pretty obvious upon making one of each in the designer. If that isn't enough for you, cheatmode a 1v1 fight together. Battleship always wins. Then cheat a 5v5 - carriers always win. At least the first fight, anyway. [/quote] [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55v0xWF5Htc&ab_channel=BenFulton[/video] There you go this was a video of a maxed battle
[quote who="exelsis" reply="5" id="3611210"] you can easily obliterate carrier fleets if you are intelligent about it. I should also note that in a 1v1, a battleship type will ALWAYS beat a carrier with the same tech available. Carriers only become strong in very large fleet sizes where they can be defended by battleships, get stacked fleet bonuses to fighters, or simply max out logistics with ubercarriers [/quote] Got any proof of that exelsis? Because th