Having just encountered my umpteenth previously-discovered, still-unresolved glitch in this game, I find myself again reconsidering my commitment Gal Civ 3. It seems everywhere I go in the game I find bugs, 'unintended features,' or lackluster performance. In nearly every case, these problems are known, and have been for some time. I am not a pro gamer, I don't know how much polish is expected of a released game, but I never had this many problems with GC2, or Civ5, or Shogun, certainly not over a year after release.
I love this game, I have a huge investment of time and energy in this game, and given the dependence on crowd-sourcing for additional content, I'd like others to remain invested as well. Gamer support is unquestionably vital to the success of a game and a game company. However, I imagine support drops off rapidly when things don't work the way they are supposed to.
I therefore ask my fellow players for opinions on this question: does it seem to you that Stardock is serving your interests by working on a major expansion for a game that has been accused of working more like a beta than a finished product? Should Stardock concentrate limited resources developing new parts of the game when the old parts still have glaring, fun-killing problems? Or should they hold off and use that time and effort to allow the present game to live up to its full potential?
I am a wary of buying a new car from someone who already sold me one that doesn't work right. Do you consider the game complete enough to warrant another major expansion? I understand that a second expansion is part of the de rigour game company business model now. I am as excited as the next person to find out what is in it, but isn't there a point at which you as a gamer should withdraw your support for a game rather than encourage business practices with which you disagree?
If you feel strongly about this, I would suggest lettering the developers know in a constructive, positive manner. I've seen a lot of disparaging remarks here and on Steam, and I don't think they help anyone. Suggesting a solution and offering support is a lot more helpful than yelling. However, if people are as frustrated as I am, we need to at least try to engage the devs on this.
Is there a point at which you as a gamer will withdraw your support for a game and move on?
You can stay with me but, it won't be anything like your used to so you may just want to stay
Aside from a complainer or two, I always seen your work held in high esteem in these forums. Whenever Frogboy gets involved, I only see excitement. Maybe I don't come around often enough? Lol
There will be, like in GalCiv II, some new AI options added to the base game. They will not be on by default (just like they were off in GalCiv II). But they will enable expensive algorithms that let the AI really play to win even if it means playing in...not so fun ways.
Back in GalCiv II, a lot of the reason the game felt balanced was because it was the AI, not humans, that found the cheese.
For example, the reason the game didn't have issues with insanely powerful engines was because the AI would design ships with huge ranges with huge sensors, see someone move a transport out of orbit (just for one turn) and the AI would zip in and kill it and leave. Thus, we had to patch the game to keep the AI from designing cheese ships.
There's still a thread around, I think it's called "AI cheese ships". That's the benefit of AI generated ship designs (the downside, as some may recall, is AI ships could often look pretty weird).
Now, I can't promise all that here in base GalCiv III as I haven't really looked at the AI in over a year other than a general overview. But hopefully it helps illustrate my general philosophy on how to do AI.
That seems fair enough. The people complaining about it being too easy are the ones min-maxing with optimal strategies. It's great that they've found them but it'll be even greater when they're up against an AI that plays just as viciously. I hope that the different races retain their personalities while playing to win. And it wouldn't hurt to give a bump to tech that seems to be overshadowed by more efficient options so we all don't head down the same paths on the tech tree. Tall order but you've got my wallet behind you!
As far as I'm concerned GalcivIII has been a complete waste of money. From the Alpha to the present day i have not been able to complete a single bloody play through. Late game the same thing happens turns get longer & longer & longer until the point the game keeps crashing and becomes unplayable. I've even took a year of in the hope that the Galciv team might iron out the bugs in this shit show of a game. It's just so frustrating building up for hour upon hour, only for the game to go tits up just as you're getting to the fun bit (conquering the galaxy).
This... one of the reasons why larger map games don't get completed.
ditto
Then you are the person I need.
I need you to send me your saved game. I will use that as the basis for my AI and optimization work.
Someone did this with Sorcerer King recently and I was able to cut the late game turn times from over 40 seconds down to 6 seconds for him and everyone else in that situation.
In fact, anyone who has a saved game late game that has dumb AI or slow turn performance, send it to me. bwardell@stardock.com with the subject GalCiv III save.
Don't have a current one but, on turn 120 in my current insane game w/ 96 AI so if I get there I'll let you know. My last time I attempted a long game was back on 1.8 (ish) At this point turn time is around 30 seconds, which I can deal with.
I really like this. Thank you!
Brad? Old? Come on. We have met (you probably don't remember). It was during the development of GC1 and I visited your facility. I had just retired then.
If you want to claim to be old, you must exceed my age (77, and I still feel young).
BTW, all of your aims sound great. There is only one more feature that I would like to see (please don't cringe when I say it) -- full manual battle control. I think in order for the game to be as complete, believable, and realistic seeming as you are describing, it will never reach that point without it. After all, conflict of all types are a part of the human condition, even if physical combat is a very negative one. As was once expressed by Anakin Skywalker (and I am paraphrasing here), when normal negotiations fail you sometimes are forced into aggressive negotiations.
If no one else cringes, I will. To my analysis, one of the reasons we lost the Frog on these forums in the first place was the kind of nasty debates started multiple times in multiple threads on multiple forums over subjects like "realistic" combat. It is a loaded word and a loaded subject. It sounds like you are already aware of just how big an issue it is, and yet you think it will be all right to bring it up just one thousandth time more because you ask us cutely not to cringe. Not gonna happen. At least, not with me. Since I am not in their marketing department, I have no reason to be silent on the subject of people who bring up issues long after they have been repeatedly been beaten to death. The issues I mean, not the people. At least, not yet.
I dunno but full battle control would certainly open another can of AI worms.
Brad? Old? Come on. We have met (you probably don't remember). It was during the development of GC1 and I visited your facility. I had just retired then.If you want to claim to be old, you must exceed my age (77, and I still feel young). BTW, all of your aims sound great. There is only one more feature that I would like to see (please don't cringe when I say it) -- full manual battle control. I think in order for the game to be as complete, believable, and realistic seeming as you are describing, it will never reach that point without it. After all, conflict of all types are a part of the human condition, even if physical combat is a very negative one. As was once expressed by Anakin Skywalker (and I am paraphrasing here), when normal negotiations fail you sometimes are forced into aggressive negotiations.
I'm on board with this too. And even if we don't get full battle control some means to direct ships at a macro level on an engagement by engagement basis. The current ship roles are nice but it forces you into "one-size-fits-all" and that simply doesn't work for every engagement. I think either option would require significant work to be done to the battle system.
EDIT: Also, totally unrelated but I'm loving the frack crap out of Escalation. Well Done!
That's good to hear as it seems there are plenty who experience this issue. I consider myself "lucky" in that I rarely have had any issues with the game, even in its' Alpha stage. My uneducated assumption is it's because of the amount of memory I have in my rig (ASUS Maximus VII, i7 4970K @ 4.8, GTX 970 SSC, 32GB G.Skill DDR 2133,Thermaltake Level 10 GT Super Gaming Modular Full Tower Computer Case, Noctua NH-D15 6 Cooler, Win 10 Pro, Track IR5, Warthog, CH Pro Pedals, CH Throttle Quadrant, 1 32" & 2 19" Monitors) as I always play on Huge and above sized maps with on average 25-30 other races and even after 400-500+ turns I don't experience any major slow downs where I find myself being impatient for the turn to end. (sounds of knocking on wood heard in the background)
I've been quite pleased with my purchase/experience to date and have the utmost faith in the game continuing to improve and bring all the goodies I came to love about GC2. Looking forward to the future!
The game hasn't crashed for me in awhile I think they fixed it for me with 1.83, but that doesn't mean there are other problems I don't have. I've always liked the game, and I think it now has a better user interface than two now. The are still upgrading two as of this year, so you can expect them modifying it in the year 2026, so realistically it wont be finished for ten years.
Other than crashes, and a little balancing the game always worked the way it was supposed to.
I am a wary of buying a new car from someone who already sold me one that doesn't work right. Do you consider the game complete enough to warrant another major expansion? I understand that a second expansion is part of the de rigour game company business model now. I am as excited as the next person to find out what is in it, but isn't there a point at which you as a gamer should withdraw your support for a game rather than encourage business practices with which you disagree?If you feel strongly about this, I would suggest lettering the developers know in a constructive, positive manner. I've seen a lot of disparaging remarks here and on Steam, and I don't think they help anyone. Suggesting a solution and offering support is a lot more helpful than yelling. However, if people are as frustrated as I am, we need to at least try to engage the devs on this. Is there a point at which you as a gamer will withdraw your support for a game and move on?
Last I checked Gal Civ 3 was in a really good state and was a lot of fun to play. I think what it needs is more content as well as improvement to AI war fighting and diplomacy. I'm under the impression that the next expansion is going to add a bunch of new mechanics like politics.
On the other hand, with the 4x market saturated right now, it'll have to make a big impression when it comes to the next expansion. Games like Stellaris have raised expectations.
I like to see constructive communication here, the only thing I would add to your reply is suggestions on how you think they can improve with examples and explanations on to why that way is better. It's very easy to provide criticism but, it's not always the easiest to provide possible solutions and explanations.
I don't think this thread is the best place to discuss problems in detail. It would be better to discuss individual problems and solutions in other threads ... and there are already lots of threads and discussions providing exactly what you want. Just three recent examples:
https://forums.galciv3.com/480408/page/1/#3656717
https://forums.galciv3.com/480191/
https://forums.galciv3.com/480070/page/1/#3655662
------------
As for my two cents in this thread:
Personally I am not regretting buying GalCiv3 and many of the DLCs so far and I probably will purchase more in the future. I don't see the need to stop development of DLCs or expansions in order to fix the current game. Also I can not complain about stability or performance. However I have to agree that GalCiv3 has two basic shortcomings which have already been mentioned:
1. The fight against the AI is difficult at first but later the AI can not keep up and it get's a little ridiculous. I sure hope the annoucements in this thread that this will be adressed are true.
2. The usability of GalCiv3 on larger maps is very poor and with almost every feature I have to seriously ask myself if any of the developers tried to play an insane map for real. And no, I'm not complaining about micro management. I like to micro manage even on insane maps - but I don't like to have to make 10 clicks where one would suffice. And I don't like to have to search information that should be provided in convient ways.Yes, there have been improvements on that part, but as far as I know they all came after long struggles and lots of begging. An example are the sorting options in the ship and planets list - after a long time of begging, they were finally implemented ... but are they really thought through? I beg to differ. Another example are the "move to top/bottom"-arrows in the shipyard. I was happy when I read the update notes on that one and they are good - but did they thought of putting them also on the building queues on planets? No. NO, of course not - that would only have been the logical thing to do.Apparently the GalCiv3 team has basically no compentence in usability engineering - and to be honest, I have given up hope on that part.
I think that is unfair. The programmers are clearly more than competent, certainly good enough to make a marketable game. I agree that parts of the interface could be more ergonomic, but we don't know if that is a failing on thee part of the team, or, much more likely, a choice to allocate resources to a more pressing issue. I assume that every new hotkey and widget adds a day of programming or more, plus days of testing, as well as careful coordination with project managers, all while fixing bugs. So we may have gotten Starbase Automation instead of a new interface.
Let's try to keep these posts positive, I know many of us are frustrated at different things in the game but, there can be a more constructive way to get this point across
My full time move to GalCiv III doesn't start until November 28.And I won't be gloating. That's too easy. You have a misunderunderstanding of my expectations of good AI. It's not enough for it to win. It has to destroy you. Once I enslave you all to the AI, there will be no more complaining. From anyone. Ever.In preparation for the fact that I'm an old, cranky man now, we have hired two new engineers to work on GalCiv III. I have a lot of complaints. A lot more than you guys do. I'm not a popular guy around here. Which reminds me, when this is over, I expect some of you to offer me a place to stay.
I just want to say that I became a founder for GalCiv III because of you. I don't begrudge your lack of involvement because the scope of Stardock's business has vastly increased since the days of GalCiv II.. but I think all of the hardcore GalCiv fans have definitely missed your involvement. Whether that is in the perceived incompetence of the AI, the infrequency of your contributions in the forum, or the dearth of development journals is hard to say.
I am excited that you are taking a hands on approach. I've been sad that I have felt so little compulsion to play GalCiv III. I can't wait for that to change...!
As OP, I formally rescind the basis of this post. Major improvements in the game have happened BEFORE Crusade, and the news on Crusade is so promising, and the expansion may go so far toward solving problems and improving the game, that it seems best to let StarDock do what they do best.
Thanks StarDock!
Thank you! And to those who sent me sir saved games. That was really the key!
Hey Creemap. I play on insane maps with 2 to 3 opponents. I set the game to save every 20 moves. This means that near end game its hanging on to a few saved games which really slows the game down, After every 40 or so moves I hit the escape key. delete the previous saves listed and the save the game in its current state. Do that also at the end of a session. I only hold saves in the early game in case I blow it and can go back to an earlier save. Hope this helps.
I am fine with the DLC model.Games like Moo2 and AlphaCentuari had like one patch and that was it.We get games that live on years after release now.Games like WarhammerTW and EU4 would be good games but not close to what they became after DLC support.
Bit of a nit pick really, Stellaris is not a 4x, its GSG.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
