The only problem with "Early Quits" is that players will do it in Pantheon and maybe Skirmish games any time they encounter an enemy who they recognize as a good player to try to force matches where they can smash lesser players.
Stardock Forums
[quote quoting="article"] If this were an Xbox game or a PS3 game, we wouldn’t have to do any of this. We’d simply hand the user off to the manufacturer’s already included super mega system and it would take care of it. [/quote] That's not even close to true, unfortunately. The consoles' networking, as with many other facets of development, generally isn't much better... just horrible differently.
For some reason I don't understand, a real error message is in the log file. From my experience it almost always says that the game(s) you tried to join are full. Since that's obviously not the case in the UI, it either means that a) the error message is wrong, b ) the master server is *way* behind on updating game player counts, or c) the UI is showing the wrong number (for example players that are currently connecting might be counted against the player limit, but not shown in the UI as in
For sure I'm losing all my achievements and favor points every time I play a Pantheon game. Might be any multiplayer game, but I'm not 100% certain. On the up side, I guess we don't have to worry about whether the favor items are balanced if no one can ever keep their favor points long enough to buy them :/
[quote who="kryo" reply="1" id="2147628"]Multiplayer menu latency will be due to server calls. Right now the servers are heavily loaded; we added more yesterday afternoon and are adding even more servers today.[/quote] Are you guys planning on doing something about that? At least a dialog with "Accessing Servers... Please Wait". Optimally with a Cancel button. The connection problems are bad enough, but as has been so often pointed out, not unheard of for a game using a
I'm getting the same. When I check the logs it says the games I'm trying to join are full, although the UI says otherwise. Who knows, I'll try again tomorrow night I guess. I also don't understand why they'd put a more descriptive error message in the log and simply display "failure to join game" in the UI... unless the log message is inaccurate.
While the industry's recent use of "beta" as "demo with an excuse for any/all issues" isn't helping, I don't think your use of the word for your early versions is much more accurate. I'm not sure your early "beta" versions even qualify for "alpha" ;)
Somehow during the era of technical-limitation-induced save points game designers (particularly of JRPGs but not just them) got it in their heads that drastically limiting the player's ability to save is somehow a key component of the game's "challenge". The whole concept needs to die. If I want to save every ten seconds to make sure I don't have to replay anything, I should be able to.
Stardock Forums
[quote]While I agree that the ability to "steal" starbase resources is a bit unbalanced in favor of a nation not at war, in reality they don't jump on the resources because they'll just immediately get blown up. So, it makes sense that the AI doesn't prioritize it while still at war. [/quote] It makes sense that the AI doesn't try to immediately capture the resources. But it doesn't make sense that it would be happy about me taking them instead. I know how I react when another race
One of the issues I've had with GalCiv 2 from the beginning is that pouring everything into diplomacy seems to make the game too easy. If I have enough then between tech trading at an advantage and the relations bonuses it's hard to be overcome unless the AI severely outproduces me. Something I realized that contributes a lot is that the AI never seems to care when I give stuff to its enemies (particularly ships). Normally war might be a threat to a diplomacy player even when not involved
Yes, of course. It was totally piracy that hurt Crysis. That the vast majority of users couldn't run the game at a playable detail level and framerate had absolutely nothing to do with it.
That series would be brilliant if only they would make the combat fun. I wonder if this time they'll finally do it.
Those of you complaining about "different rules for humans vs AI" are misunderstanding the situation. It's not different rules for humans vs AI, it's different rules for proposing vs receiving . When the AI proposes a trade to another, it seems to value its techs completely differently from when it's on the other end. Almost every 1 for 1 deal I've ever received from the AI it would never accept if I was the one proposing it. Several times in Dark Avatar I've received trade offers from the
It should be made impossible to win a Diplomatic victory when anyone is at war. It seems really weird that everyone except me can be blowing each other to bits, then I come by and say "hey, everyone, ally with me" and suddenly everyone drops their weapons and dances in the streets. Instead, starting an alliance with a warring race should require you to join in on their side. This both makes more se
Mostly, yes - and I don't just mean from the player viewpoint. It is clear in the new patch that wars between AIs go on much longer, and often indefinitely because they are not able to negotiate a peace treaty - you always saw the same sort of behaviour, but to a lesser extent, in games with tech trading disabled. The AI so frequently signs a peace treaty and redeclares war in the same turn that I'm convinced there's something broken there. The
I don't know what game you're playing, but for me diplomacy is still the easiest win in the game and aside from some war-related or colonization-related techs that the AI prizes, trading everything else out from under them (or just getting free money from them for tech areas they're far behind on) is still easy. On top of that, in order to get in a war at high diplomacy + super ability you basically either need a random event to occur or be so far behind in military that they can crush
Stardock Forums
Is there a release date? I can't seem to find one anywhere...
I'm on my second game now in beta 4B with a Large galaxy and occassional planets/habitable and I'm sure minor civs are enabled (i.e. the "Disable Minor Races" is NOT checked) but there's no minors anywhere to be found. Anyone else experiencing this?
The social project time estimates are still completely broken when social points are or recently were being converted to military. I either get "Never" or extremely long inaccurate times (a couple hundred weeks when it really takes 10, etc). Exiting and re-entering the colony screen for that planet fixes the estimates, but I think this is going to be a huge newbie confusion issue if it makes it into the final version.
Stardock Forums
I am surprised they let beta scores into the metaverse... but what do I know. I assume they allow it because they can alter Metaverse scores after the fact and therefore if a beta ends up having a horrible bug that breaks it, they can just alter/delete those scores.
Remember the good old days when this sort of content would be released for free as part of patches? I would like to point out that SOME companies, such as, say, the one whose website this is, still do.
AI wont' "help" you by giving you starbases to fight wars. Do they still (or have they ever) "helped" by giving normal ships? I liked everything about some races being nice and helping me out if I'm weak except for the crippling themselves by giving me loaded up mining bases <img src="http://images.st
I agree. Chess AI is also purely scripted in the OPENING. Why? Because it is stronger then. And in contrast to Brad the programmers of the chess AI admit that the strategical part of their AI is still retarded. (Chess AIs are able beat humans in strategical sound positions because of TACTICS.) Chess a
I'd have to agree - every time I research a new tech I do the rounds of all the AI I know to see who I can trade it to and what I can get off them. It makes sense that the AI do the same, and IMO the problem here is general game design rather than AI - it simply should not be so useful to trade techs this way. I personally liked the idea of trading techs only giving you some percentage (say 50%) and you have to actually research the rest, but it's prob
I have, but it was at the very end of the game, and I was winning culturally not by conquest so it meant absolutely nothing
Demigod Forums
GalCiv2 Forums