eviator

Eh, he's one of the 3%, so he will be ignored. The science is settled, after all /sarcasm

I'm for 5, 6, 9, 13, and I guess 17. Combined these give a good look of the various aspects of the game. I assume this has something to do with advertising, perhaps screenshots for the steam page. Are you open to founder submissions?

I agree that if you could wait until January, you should. But since you can't, I recommend you do NOT call it beta. Don't even call it pre-beta. People have a level of expectations when you mention the word beta, even if those expectations are unfair. People have a different level of expectations when you call it "alpha", and with missing major functions, some unit behavior weirdness, and the fact that it still crashes often, you really are still more in alpha territory anyway. It&#39

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="5" id="3593946"] October 22. [e digicons]:)[/e] [/quote] Awesome!

Yeah, I've been unable to come even close to reproducing in 0.55, which is great because now I want to play the game! I will soon create a new post, with accompanying unlisted video, showing unwanted unit behavior in battle groups where units shift around and take weird paths, causing the whole group to slow down. I don't envy the person who is tasked with fixing that.

I was able to reproduce this bug in 0.51 twice using the same procedure with minimal units (3-6 T1 squads). Then the third time it didn't work. I'll keep working on it. What seems to be a common occurrence whenever I encounter this bug is that units try moving up mountains and other inaccessible parts of the map. If I can figure out how to force units into inaccessible locations, that might trigger the bug (or perhaps that is the reverse cause and effect). Also, genera

I've encountered it in 0.50, even have a video of it (unlisted) [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzRWAI3HQ2k[/video] I'll see if I can reliably reproduce.

Yep, works like a charm! Well done. Hopefully that means they can now debug it fast and push 0.55 :D

Well here's the thing...you can, right now, click on the strategic map and the main window goes to that location. Just tried it. No, it doesn't change zoom level, but I wouldn't want it to. So whatever minidump was saying about, who knows.

I'm here for the social interaction...and the wedgies. naselus I think we found common ground. I agree with everything you said in your last post.

Your point is made. It's a pointless point that appears to be aimed at mind control. Why do you care if I think this is a micromanagement patch? I will not oblige. No, it does not allow you the same control with less clicks, and so by your definition it is not a micro patch. By my definition, it is. My goal isn't to maintain a high level of control. My goal is to maximize the output of individual planets and my civilization as a whole within the rules of the game. Patch 1.4 al

Macsen, the new system is now much like GC2 in that there are global settings and planet focuses. So are you saying even that system is too much micro? I agree they should work on a way to mess with focuses on a planet list, like the colonies tab, like they did in GC2. I'm also not sure I follow on the AI comment. Equally skilled opponents should have longer matches. Certainly there is more room for improvement, but you are comparing apples (you, a highly skilled player who knows

[quote who="a0152570" reply="64" id="3593176"] Quoting eviator, reply 63 That's ridiculous, even you must have felt weird writing it. Not really, he just listened to what Paul and Brad had to say on the topic and the wheel removal was 100% balance, Govs were sold as an appeasem

[quote who="naselus" reply="62" id="3593094"] It's entirely a balance change. It does not objectively reduce micromanagement. This sentence is the telling [/quote] That's ridiculous, even you must have felt weird writing it. If it reduces micro for most players, some players, or even few players using a particular play style, then it is in part a micromanagement change, especially if the devs intend it to be so. It will reduce play options, thus changing my

You are where I was 5 minutes ago before reading your post: you are under the misconception that everyone plays like you. Whereas you set your manufacturing to 100% whenever you do upgrades, even with access to the planet wheel I prefer to keep my research/wealth colonies around 20% manufacturing full-time so the upgrades happen slowly and I do not lose wealth/research production during the upgrades. I don't know which style is more prevelant, but I can say the game design does not favor

[quote who="naselus" reply="52" id="3592933"] I'm still a little dubious about the removal of the wheel (though in truth, focuses are not removing the wheel but simply offering the player a few fixed points on it to use), and we can see from the live stream that while manufacturing scores are doing well, research and wealth production remain poor; we also see that split-production worlds aren't much use (for example, the planet with 2 research labs that has achieved a massi

[quote who="erischild" reply="45" id="3592799"] When you do more research in the future, do enough to know that Stardock is worth more patience than many other vendors. It will help you set realistic expectations and avoid disappointment. In the meantime, enjoy the new AI! It is definitely showing promise. Can't wait for 1.4 and I am one of the more patient types. [e digicons];)[/e] [/quote] I appreciate a developer working hard to make

Love it, can't wait! Been looking forward to those global abilities!

What does "click to zoom" even mean. It's ambiguous to me.

I am running an i5-2500K and while the game isn't as smooth as butter, it runs unexpectedly well. I believe they have the CPU requirements higher because they want people to have a great experience, and not poo-poo the game because it doesn't run to their expectations on older hardware. I like how you've differentiated the units by their role and strengths. Now I'd love to see the behavioral differentiation you planned in battle groups become a reality: [quote]

The Aven map is asymmetric, which is fine, but the one and only Turinium node looks to be more accessible to two of the players. Is this intentional?

I appreciate the response.

"A few weeks" was a phrase I read most recently.

[quote who="Jafo" reply="2567" id="3591838"] Quoting eviator, reply 2566 The point was, And it was lost in the making, hence my responses. Your comment inferred the landings did not happen. Just as with jokes....if you have to explain it/them they didn't work....[e di

[quote who="Jafo" reply="2565" id="3591830"] Quoting eviator, reply 2564 Makes me question his IQ. Of course your comment re the moon landings makes me question your age. Typically it is the young who assume some ancient artifice of pre-Cambrian Photoshop falsified reality...[e digi