Hmm, based on my recent games, I'm probably gonna go at max AI level now (I beat them handily at Masochistic). But I'm playing a scenario game. On a normal game I get whacked on Tough.
For all the hype and praise we fans are giving the game here, we sure aren't letting it be known outside of this community (and maybe penny-arcade, and of course apolyton.net). For example, there's a grand total of 5 votes for GalCiv2 on Gamerankings.com. One of them's mine, and one of them's a 1.
I believe so. First, you're paying $5 extra, second, it all goes to Stardock instead of to the retailer middlemen.
Maybe if the Tactical component was $50 and enough people actually say they'd preorder it at that price. Otherwise I doubt Stardock would have the resources nor business interest in doing it.
As with the rest of the game, battles are automated. Other than rolling the dice at the very beginning.
Many of the medals are missing Title tags, so we have no idea what the medal's for. Any chance of us seeing those medals underneath our posts like with the GC1 forums?
I just run it in a window the same size as my desktop resolution. I can switch flawlessly in and out.
Metaverse game, to get the ball rolling. I'll probably get my butt kicked first game, so I'll have to play it again.
Perhaps someone should try to submit an article to Slashdot about the no copy-protection thingie?
Hmm, ok in that case, nevermind me and this thread.
Look at the flip side of the equation. If scores were reset every day, would you bother, knowing that in a day, it'll be as if you never played? Now extend it to a month. Then extend it to 20 months. Replayability also requires that the activity contains value (more specifically, it has to confer more value than other activities, or else you'd just go do that other activity). Why do some games include unlocks? To give the player value r
All of the devaluation suggestions I suggested would keep the player FAR FAR away from the top of the list. However, the difference between my suggestions and the status quo is that, it won't be as if the player never existed! I'm pretty sure it is an absolute 5% because there was a pretty big debate on the GalCiv 1 forums about it. Unless they've changed it since then, eventually, you'll have a score of 0.
But Griffin of Galactic Balance does have a ring to it.
The problem is not that scores devalue, it has to devalue or new players will almost never catch up. You certainly don't want to alienate new players. The problem is scores devaluing to ZERO after a relatively short, finite period of time. This creates the opposite problem and alienates the old players. 20 months from when you last play, it'll be as if you never ever touched the game as far as the Metaverse is concerned. If you must have scores spiral downward forever, then using
Can we please stop derailing this thread? You can argue for multiplayer in that other thread. I'd like this thread to remain specific to the problem of Metaverse scoring. Thanks.
This time around, can you please make it so your old metaverse scores won't just get devalued into nothingness? This was one of the things that made me quickly decide to stop bothering with submitting scores to the Metaverse. If I remember correctly, every month (technically 30-day block), your old scores would be devalued by 5% of the original score. So let's say this month, I had a score of 10,000. Next month, it would be worth 9500, an
Yes, if you turn on full battles for non-fleet battles.
Stardock Forums
Hmm, just tried the demo. Seemed a bit simplistic. All those systems you can attack on a ship is interesting, though they don't really seem to help that much. Bombing runs seem a tad overpowered. They're kinda like nukes. The cinematic camera was blah. Camera switched a bit too often, and seemed buggy, like flickering back and forth. Gameplay reminds me of Rise of Nations though, which is nice. But I think I'll hold out for
The AI *is* supposed to play kinda like a human too. Except they won't actually disconnect quite as quickly.
Assuming you turned on the full battles for all battles option.
Well, it's more realistic that way in a sense. 10 normal bullets to your bulletproof vest is not the same as a single bullet 10 times the size ramming through the vest. On the other hand, 2 lasers on a ship IS 2x more powerful than 1 laser on that ship. And yes, weapon mounts take a little less space on smaller hulls.
Fleets are still better than single ships though. 3 attacks vs. 1 attack (fleet), vs. 3 x (1 attack vs. 1 attack)
Meh, I do some detailed game info posts once in a while on various forums as well. Someone should be paying me dammit!
It won't run. You don't have a CPU.
Well, farms might be useful in balancing your planets. If you make it so every planet has the same population, then they'll need an equal number of morale/tax rate, instead of some planets being unhappy while some being very happy at a certain tax rate. With numbers and formulas, we could crunch them to see what gives the best results.
GalCiv2 Forums