So when I hit Request Constructor from a starbase, it queues up a thing called "Basic Build" (as Yor anyway). This is an absolutely minimal constructor with, as far as I can find, no alterable blueprint, which just automagically appears and forces itself upon me like a box of stale male genitalia. (What a grand planet we live on, where "dicks" invites censorship.)
Why would I ever want my 5-planet-sponsored shipyard spewing out pieces of garbage that don't use a tenth of its capacity? There's an effing WAR on, people! There's no conceivable scenario where extra constructor units are not wanted. If you have leftovers, you can send it somewhere else, or sell it. The thing that is NOT WANTED is this (foecal) unchangeable default that squanders my manufacturing capacity per turn.
Is there really no way to change which blueprint the Request Constructor button calls? I don't think it worked this way before... Did it work this way before? If not, why did you drop such a <steamy bazinga> onto this useful button? It's such a colossal waste of turns to be spewing out singles when i could be doing 3 or, like, 7 or 9-point Constructors once Massive is researched.
hnnrrrg. Please, someone, point out the obvious way to adjust this setting that surely must exist and which I'm simply not seeing. Please?
o.0
Otherwise, top priority fix kplsthx. Also while you're at it, this button really needs a hotkey bound to it. Wiggling your mouse around aiming for tiny buttons is so 2006
Where i come from, this is considered insulting language. If you are making a request and want results, try courtesy. It works.
If you want an answer, try reposing in civil manor and find out whats going on otherwise
No, sadly in my experience it doesn't really matter how 'finished' or 'unfinished' a game is, there will always be rude, entitled idiots who think it's cool to insult the devs and attack people who don't share their loutish world view.
As to your actual issue, the 'basic build' thing is a response to player requests not to have 'request constructor' build unnecessarily expensive constructors. It's a temporary measure, though, as they seem to be planning a much larger revision/expansion of the whole starbase system in the future.
Positively smothering yourself in glory aren't you. Top marks.
That said, I share much of your frustration with the way that this game has been designed, in many areas; the game has a good early phase but things seem to slip away and fall apart thereafter. Mind you, there are very few 4X games that are satisfying and engaging right up to the chequered flag.
GC2 started out in a similar state and became a 'classic'. GC3 huddles within the shadow of GC2 but one day the student will surpass the master. One day.
It doesn’t really matter if the current system is good or not, if you are requesting a change then you will find being rude gives people no incentive to co-operate or take you seriously.
Responding to people trying to point this out to you with more cheap insults is unlikely to improve the way people perceive you; yes I know you will respond to that with “What do I care what you losers think of me, yada, yada, yada”. I had a friend who was like that in his teens, it fooled no one and he grew out of it, you will too I’m sure. Though childish behavior is more acceptable to some on the internet it’s still ineffective in getting people to listen to you.
You should be a diplomat you have a way with words. And no you could never assign it to use a different blue print. I manually assign the build because the construct button is worthless at the moment but then it always has been.
Oh give the guy a break. This feature really should be fixed because the only alternative is manually placing constructors which is maddening when you're dealing with 200+ starbases.
No one has argued against that point that I saw. Did I miss something?
As BigBadB stated, this feature was in response to help mitigate constructor spam and help manage Star Bases. I never use it as it currently will not let you select your own faster constructors as default and the basic one will take the next ice age to get across an insane map.
I guess I am a bit different. I play on Insane and have 100+ star bases. I have several master yards that crank out ships at 1 per turn regardless of size or space. I will usually cue up 10-20 constructors and when one pops out ill grab it and manually send it to its mining base. Case closed done and done.
The system is not broken by any means. What the OP wants (and could be a bit nicer about it) is a QoL issue. Its not game breaking and only takes a wee bit more time (to manually select and place constructors).
What I find amusing is we are all 'gamers' and as such we play games to kill time. Here we have a mechanic that 'takes time' to do right and everyone screams to fix the mechanic so it can be done faster...
Granted I see the 'eye scrambling' mess that a late game-constructor/star base filled galaxy can bring, it just seems so silly to be so upset over it.
Small correction: we play games to have fun. You can kill time in all sorts of non-fun ways.
I only play on small to mid-size maps because large maps cross the line from "fun" to "work".
Agreed. However i must say i am really looking forward to when all the micromanagement fixes get in so i can have 'fun' with insane maps. Love the game but not when it begins to feel more like work.
On larger maps I stop on turn 60. "Yup I've won," is my general philosophy.
This has always been my problem with the gal civ series. By the time the colonization game is done, I've practically won because I usually have 3-6x the worlds everyone else has. In addition, the AI is too stupid to form alliances against you. Why doesn't everyone call me out in the UP after I've conquered half the galaxy?
Yes yes yes to all of the posts that werent still qqing about how mean i was to thuper thenthitive internet thtrangers. If you have any love of language at all you might dimly perceive that my manner was more playful than serious, you slobber-besodden slits.
Bellack: Hey, I like you.
Larsenex: it's upsetting insofar as the Request Constructor button is, itself, a quality of life feature. And it could be a fantastic help, but instead we get this half-thought-through implementation that hinders more than it helps. And it's such a simple fix. At the most basic level all you need to let us do is assign a blueprint, i'm not asking for a complex algorithm that updates your blueprints as you progress along the tech tree or anything. (Ahem.) I mean, the feature for whatever reason is designed to specifically not use the game's other features. The mind reels. Also, I play the same way as you. Currently at 119 starbases on turn 311... still havent explored 2/3 of the map!
Please, devs. Either allow us to choose the blueprint, or (if you want to get fancy) use the existing update system COMPARED TO EACH SHIPYARD'S PRODUCTION to spit out the best constructor that shipyard can make in a turn. Or something. Really it would be best if the one-ship-per turn rule could go quietly die a horrible death, with spiders and snakes and a urinating leprechaun.
Also, seriously, a keybind for the newly awesome Request Constructor button would also be fantastic. Might I recommend R? I've always liked R, so conveniently located as it is, and happening as it does to be the first letter of the Term in Question itself, well that'd just be perfect.
Ok thanks bye.
EDIT: Oh, BigBadB: I missed your post, sorry. (Truly, a barbarian am I.) A complete revamp of the starbase system, you say? That's very interesting. If there's info to be had about that, could you (or another) link to it here? Thanks
Ah yes, the trite 'I was joking, now I'm going to insult you all for not getting my joke' play. Classy. A shining wit among dullards, clearly.
Anyhoo...
As has been mentioned, all of this frustration -- well, most of it I expect -- will likely go away once the SB system has been revamped, effort toward which the devs have already confirmed.
an alternative might be to alter the StaticShipBlueprintDefs.xml file.
there is an entry BasicConstructorBlueprint
but, as far as i understand it so far, you can dial in pretty much everything that you want, like a constructor with 10 construction modules
and, it uses <ShipComponents> while e.g ShipBlueprintDefs.xml uses <ComponentType>, meaning that you'll have to think up a fixed ship scheme that won't alter/evolve during the game.
i think and feel that the devs did poorly on this. ShipBlueprintDefs already has a 2nd constructor blueprint (AwardConstructor), and the nice thing to do would have been to add a 3rd one - RequestConstructorBlueprint.
Incidentally I believe they did already mention on a dev steam that they are aware this is an issue and looking too address it.
This is a great idea; make the RequestConstructorBlueprint have no life support (doesn't need it), 1 or even 2 constructor modules, and either have a few engines or fill up all the remaining space with engines, to speed up production or travel time, respectfully.
To whomever edited my first post, kudos, you almost had a sense of humour.
To whomever deleted my second post: for shame!
/facepalm
Zyathus: heh bud I'll leave that stuff to you, I can't be arsed, thanks for the tip though
Econundrum1: yeah i figured, good to know.
Node10: I guess I'll go basic. See, in my third post, I was talking about how I spoke in my first post. If you find being told that you did a bad job and should feel bad insulting, you should probably do some reading. I'd recommend starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method. Or are you the Pope? ... Discordian or Catholic? I do however stand by every insult I have made in this thread, and also this one: You are literally made of vaginas. I don't even know how you type so well with just lips. Your keyboard must be huge!!!
I actually loaded up gc2 the other day and, fond memories aside, this blows it out of the water. Even in spite of all the ridiculous problems there are with it (eg graphical glitches unaddressed since the start of open beta) this is still by far a better game. But it's gonna need a lot of polish before it looks as good in THIS day as gc2 did in its.
One day, indeed. Fingers crossed
New Game Title:
To follow up; it appears the devs have in fact coded this feature in. However, they failed to make the actual blueprint, BasicConstructorBlueprint, in the ShipBlueprintDefs. I'll be fixing this with a mod shortly.
Edit: Seems this particular blueprint will only have a constructor module on it, no matter what other components you slap onto it.
To follow up; it appears the devs have in fact coded this feature in. However, they failed to make the actual blueprint, BasicConstructorBlueprint, in the ShipBlueprintDefs. I'll be fixing this with a mod shortly.Edit: Seems this particular blueprint will only have a constructor module on it, no matter what other components you slap onto it.
Wrong. The devs HAVE put in a Basic blueprint, but you're looking in the wrong XML for it. It's in StaticShipBlueprintDefs. Static blueprints do not change, and are used for things like the initial Survey ship you start the game with.
Further, OP's problem was fixed in 1.1 before he even thought to complain about it. The game no longer summons basic constructors unless you obsolete your default constructor.
I believe the OP's problem runs deeper than anything the devs can fix with a patch. Unless, of course, it's a Nicoderm patch.
The OP enjoys the sound of his own voice far too much. Empty cans make the most noise: an otherwise fairly valid point drowned in vitriol and adolescent anger.
Awesome, thanks for the heads up!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
