[quote]And cut-scenes of the Fertility Clinics [/quote] Are you SURE about that? I mean, if you're playing as the Drengin...
Scoutdog
[quote]What about spontaneous supernovas, where the star explodes and destroys the local system while spraying valuable resources on neighboring systems. (I think this would have to be a rarely occuring mega event).[/quote] Sounds good. Same thing with a Terror Star. Might also be nice to see new galactic resorces (you know, that you can build Starbases on) spontaneously appear like anomalies do. Maybe to counteract this, have the ones you mine eventually run out, forcing you to go el
1[e digicons]:yes:[/e] 2 I am not entirely sure what you mean... 3 [e digicons]:yes:[/e] , and maybe have a tech after that that reveals planets, then one that shows (ROUGHLY) planet quality, and a surface-revealer after that. Would dovetail nicely with WILLY's varying improvement sizes. 4 What would these do? More details, please! 5 Maybe have the ability to hire pirates... 6 Again, more details! 7[e digicons]:yes:[/e] 8: Trading
I think it has to do with the difficulty levels and the AI's personality. Have you played on the higher levels with manipulative civs like the Drath?
Stardock is fairly lax in their DRM. I never had any problems with validation when my internet stopped working.
[quote]And since you've posted again...let's not get into politics in here again, shall we?[/quote] Agreed.
What I was talking about is NOT a system where the AI plays on after you loose. I am taking about a system in which after you win you can opt to continue the game afterword, as in: if you have won a culture victory you can move on to flip those last planets or reserch up the tech tree a bit more. In some situations (Conquest Victory springs to mind) this would be mind-numbingly boring, which is why it would be an OPTIONAL feature. It would have a small value to the player, but it would r
[quote]If you're having to put arbitrary caps on the ship construction mechanic, then you should just change it. It seems like what you're wanting is something more rigid than the GC2 ship construction scheme, like a slot-based model. One where you have chassis that have slots, but what can go in each slot is fixed. So an early-game ship might have one attack slot and one defense slot. A mid-game ship might have those plus a utility slot for powers. End-game ships might have 2 attack slots an
I assume you resolved it. You stopped "yell"ing about it, anyway...
Huh? Forcing players to have an equal attack and defense on cusom ships seems rather... draconian, and I don't see how it would change any of the game's problem areas. Also, there is no way to justify it in a sci-fi setting, and no devs would ever think about including it, for fear of angry space-combat junkies storming the building with pitchforks & torches. If memory serves, Alf, Sole, and GD had resolved this particular issue several pages back.
[quote]If all you are doing - Primarily - is converting image file formats, then download Irfanview.[/quote]Unfortunately, I am currently working on a very large total conversion: partly to pass the time as I wait to get out of Jock High, partly to pay homage to those clever people at Nintendo who brought us Metroid, and partly to experimant with some new ideas about the game mechanics in general. I might post it, IF the material I have "borrowed" is OK under Stardock's copyright policy AND t
Yeah, probably not. I guess I should start re-learning GIMP. I wish Adobe and Microsoft weren't so STINGY!
Whatever our differences over complexity, I have to agree with Alf here. Having the AI surrender when it looks like you are going to win is fundamentally absurd. There are too many random and human factors involved to be able to call a hopeless situation hopeless, and in any event, it takes away the whole point of the victory conditions AND exacerbates the rich-get-richer problem. However, one thing that would be good is, after winning a victory, you can still continue to play the game if you
Go into the raceconfig.xml and delete the field. This will eliminate the super ability permanently.
Alf, if you say you want something removed, but do not provide a replacement, everyone who reads your posts will come to the conclusion that there is no replacement. And I read this post. It does not include alternatives.
I've got a problem. I was fortunate enough to be able to talk my parents into getting me a copy of Photoshop. The problem is, I was 8 at the time. In the intervening years, the new versuions have of course come out, but I have been unable to figure out how to update them. Do any of you know if it is even possible? If so, how do you do it and does it cost anything.
I have to agree with Sole here: you talk about removing things, but rarely provide any replacement ideas. The ideas you DO present sound workable & interesting, but you are definately a minimalist when it comes to mechanics. Me, Zyx, Sole, and apparently a lot of other people LIKE lots of mechanics. No game is going to please everyone, and sometimes you have to bow to the majority here. [quote]Um, so? If they're willing to ship a game in such a state, they wouldn't have made a goo
[quote]Second, removing something does not mean that the game gets less interesting. How interesting the game is depends on the mechanics that it has, not the mechanics it might have had if something hadn't been removed.[/quote] However, even if a game does not include something, that does not mean the "something" is bad. It just means it was not included. The game might be better with it than it currently is without it. As a general rule, there is an optimum amount of mechanics that
It does work the same way. However, note that the game only uses graphics in PNG format. If MSPaint uses another format by default (I think it would, but I've never used the program), be sure to save as a PNG.
[quote]You can't add mechanics adnausium (and have a good game); at some point, you have to remove old stuff to make room for the new. And for a game as mechanically full and interdependent as GC2, increasing complexity in one domain requires decreasing complexity in another.[/quote] If you change a mechanic, that means you get rid of the old one. There are two ways to solve a thorny problem like PQ or rich-get-richer: either get rid of them entirely, which makes the game less interes
[quote]Why can't we fix things that are broken, instead of getting rid of them?[/quote] I second that! [e digicons]k1[/e]
If they do make a system like we are describing, it might be nice to see a new layer of planet types in which some are, say, mountainous (more mountain terrein for factories), some are Pastoral (more praeries for farming & pop growth), and so on. Might add a bit of spice to the colonization rush.
I am all for having more "special" improvements, but just adding more tiles would mean that players would just spam more econ, production, and reserch imps, and ignore the new ones. Instead, we eould need a system in which different improvements require different terreins to be buildable: factories would only work in deaserts or mountains (lots of minerals there), farms would only work on praeries, and so on. Maybe have terraforming techs that can turn one type of terrein into another...
[quote]I wouldn't go that far. If they decide to go with higher tile counts, I'd like to see buildings of various sizes. Yeah, you might have 50 tiles to build on, but each Industrial Sector might take up 4 of them, a farm only one, a stock market two, etc. As a bonus (or massive frustration, or both) this would make terrain on planets far more important. Since you would need 4 contiguous tiles to build that IS, you may not be able to fit it on that bonus tile, or if you can it's also b