After a few weeks hard work I decide to come back to one of my favorite games to play a LARGE random galaxy map.
What a shock it was to see that all map options are greyed out and I was only possible to choose between a tine and a small map.
I always played on large and even gigantic maps and with 6 GB memory and a Nvidia GTX 960 this was perfect to do with low settings. I always enjoyed playing like this. Even when I was not able to finish a map.
It's part of PC gaming for me. I played Unreal on a system with 512 MB when it came out. It crashed, it was slow etc etc
Also my Civilization maps crashes when they are getting to big. I deal with it. That's PC gaming for me.
And now all my fun is ruined because you put hardcoded restrictions to the map size I can select.
I directly uninstalled the game. I deleted my postive reviews for your other games (Sorcere King and Fallen Enchantress) I deleted Star Control from my wishlist.
You lost a customer who pay for you games.
You can try this hack, its pretty easy.
Open your Prefs.ini file. I use Crusade, so mine is in My Games -> GC3Crusade.
Find the entry called GalaxySize= and enter your preferred size.
For example, if I want an Immense galaxy, use GalaxySize=Immense (be sure and spell the size correctly, its case-sensitive). Save the Prefs.ini file.
Last step, right click on your Prefs.ini file and change the Properties to Read-Only. Its a check box next to Attributes. Click the Okay button.
Launch your game. Even though its read-only, you can still change any game option setting, except Galaxy Size.
The only valid entries for GalaxySize= are Tiny, Small, Medium, Large, Huge, Gigantic, Immense, Excessive, or Insane. There is no Ludicrous, use Insane for that size.
for Restriction removal, or placing restriction settings in MapSizeDefs.xml.
Agree with the need to remove the hard cap.
What was the point of hardcoding a cap anyway? If people want their game to crawl to a stop, let them.
I don't see any restrictions that I can modify in MapSizeDefs.xml that removes the hard limit. I could make the maps smaller but that doesn't really allow me to play on the bigger map sizes. Am I missing something?? Thanks
Using the hack of editing the prefs.ini file does work. So it makes for an added step 1 minute before starting the game.... that I'll play for hours! LOL Thanks guys.
Seriously? Talk about whiny self-entitled hate mongering. This post sums up exactly what is wrong with the review system that Steam uses.
There is nothing wrong with the review system. I did this on purpose because the devs use it as an argument to hardcode restrictions in their game. It is the language they speak, the review system.
Years of being a fan and fellow customer (I bought everything they created on release day) is less important for them.
Yeah, but what about the - probably massive majority - who don't want their game to crawl to a stop? That's the crowd Stardock are playing to - the Easy/Small crowd who like the cheesy pop fluff.
Stardock are damned if they do, damned if they don't.
That said, I think they should rightly say "Your computer can handle This Size Galaxy/This Many Opponents" etc. It's useful information. They should also allow players to over-ride their advice with a pop-up: "Do Not Bitch Online/To Stardock About Your Computer Slowing To A Crawl During This Game. We Will Ignore You If Not Outright Call You Stupid For Not Taking Our Good Advice" before the game begins.
OT - Kind of: Cablenexus makes a fair point regarding Steam Reviews - Stardock have explicitly stated the relationship between the positivity of Steam Reviews and the financial/manpower commitment to Galactic Civilizations III. Steam have - knowingly or not? My money's on "knowingly" BTW - allowed players to redo their review to exploit the powerful position they're in. Like Intrigue? Thumb Up review Monday. Hate Hardcap on map size due to computer grunt? Thumb Down review Tuesday. Rinse and Repeat.
I wonder if a Game Developer could/would take a Rating Company/Aggregator to court for directly costing them their job by showing prominently negative reviews of their former employer's latest game?
Pretty much what I did. I don't like giving this game a bad review but the hardlock severely curtails my fun.
If you hurt Stardock financially by removing good reviews then you decrease the probability that your complaints are heard because SD won't / can't allocate as much resources to the game.
Apart from that it's very subjective what a player sees as fun crippling and what not. SD cannot satisfy all wishes.
Thank you lyssailcor, you probably have the needed 16 GB in your system to play large maps. Thats nice for you. I understand you will be personally influenced if they remove the gameplay CAP for people without enough RAM and no possibility to upgrade this anytime soon.
I don't know exactly what you loose IF the options to play on a large map aren't greyed out anymore for other people? Please explain this to me.
Try to imagine you play your favorite game for years. You hate people leaving bad reviews for it in the forums. You love to play on large maps and you do not suffer from CTD's while doing so. You can still follow?
And then you login one day, download a patch, buy all expansion packs and DLC to support Stardock and you start the game and are restricted to play on TINY maps only. How will you feel?
It's done because some people probably leaves a bad review when their system specs are low.
I WAS NOT ONE OF THIS PERSONS! And now I have to suffer as a fan who support Stardock by promoting and buying all their games because of a bunch of idiots who abuse the review system?
It makes half of the Workshop (everything larger then tiny maps) obsolete at once for me, it makes the expansion packs and DLC obsolete for me and it makes the game obsolete for me. I would NEVER play on a TINY map in a 4x game in my life NEVER out of free will!
I'm forced now because other people abusing a system and the developers choose to give them a hand and the real fans (modmakers, map makers with crappy systems, poor people etc tec) a PUNCH in the face.
Fair? If I was allowed to I was refunding all of their products at once.
There is no downside to including no caps. All they need is a specification notification/warning.
Those people would naturally play their game on smaller size maps, lower graphical settings, or a combination of both. It is not rocket science. There is no need for the devs to force it on the players. If the players cannot figure it out, then I am sorry to say that the problem is the player, and not the game.
I didn't say I appreciate the hard cap. In fact I find it wrong and am all for letting the players decide for themselves what they can play with their hardware.
But I say threatening SD with bad reviews will not increase your chances to being heard. Just my personal opinion though.
Quoting , quoting postI directly uninstalled the game. I deleted my postive reviews for your other games (Sorcere King and Fallen Enchantress) I deleted Star Control from my wishlist.You lost a customer who pay for you games.
While I empathize with your concerns, a reaction that includes other games seems punitive - like others have noted (and true), it has consequences, on real people, that you can't know.
Indeed, that is often the case. If the game crashes because they are playing on a map size that makes it prone to do so, they don't often blame their selection or specs, they blame the game.
Even with a prior warning, people would still complain (and perhaps use a poor review as a weapon) that it was the game and not their specs. That said, I have (and will continue to) advocated for it as it seems to round all the bases at least. I will again speak with the producer on such a prompt.
Is GC3 a bad game because it protects people from crashes with map size restrictions? Of course not - but a collection of poor reviews just because of an issue of debatable significance (or without any context at all) will likely have some people assume it is. That is a shame.
Again, I am on 'Team warn' and will do what I can to see if it can be implemented.
Thanks for your feedback and support, guys - means a lot.
Regards,Sean DrohanStardock Customer Service Manager
I like the warning idea vs the no choices idea. Thanks for sending it up the chain Sean!
I was very childish indeed and I had no right to delete my Sorcerer Kings review. I put it back. It is a great game and map restrictions on GC III doesn't change it.
I want to say however that the reason I make the choice to write a negative review was actually the same you did to me.
I was never writing a bad review on Steam for any of your games, but I was the first to deal with restrictions.
As said this is not fair at all and that was the reason to write the negative review.
I'm sorry. I delete also the negative review. It doesn't make sense at all. But to earn a positive review for this game, please remove the hard cap on map sizes. If I want to crash the game it is my right to do so. That's why I play PC games afterall.
Thank you support for the answer.
What is the largest consumer of the processor and RAM on a ludicrous or insane map? Is it not influence being calculated for all the thousands of tiles and for all the players?
Why not nerf influence on these massive maps, as that's only part of the game. Severely restrict it to x tiles from it's source. I want even more massive maps than you have made and dont give a hoot about influence. Turn it completely off for all I care.
I thought it was sheer number of garbage ships that the AI pumps out that bogs the game down. :/
ships are actually more a problem of cpu (pathfinding),
a big factor for ram is fow, which also means if you play with less than recomemndet factions you need less ram,
thats why its no problem for me to play the biggest maps with only 24gb of ram.
I also think a hardcap isnt the best way, just make a popup when you try to start the game with less then recommendet specs,
that tells you its not a good idea but you can just click do proceed anyway^^
Seems like that could be worked around as well. No reason to pathfind the precise route of a ship/fleet beyond two sectors of its movement ability per turn and it's final destination sector or two, substituting the middle of it's route with a sector route instead of precise hex until it moves closer.
Any news on this issue? I'm still waiting now two weeks to start a new giant game on my old rig. I see the Steam reviews went from 76 % to 66 % mixed score. I deleted my negative review already because what you stated that it can have consequences for real people.
I respect that.
But do you continue to restrict your customers who paid THEIR hard earned money for a game they can't play anymore? Or are you guys remove the hardlock anytime soon?
A command line switch is being added to the latest opt-in V3.04.
Tested and confirmed. It works. Now back to chugging on my game.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account