DerekPaxton DerekPaxton

Galactic Civilizations III - Patch 1.02

▼

Galactic Civilizations III - Patch 1.02

from GalCiv3 Forums

*Released 6/1/2015*


 

Features

When playing with a custom faction in multiplayer it will now send your custom leader foreground and background

We now display worldwide lobbies instead of those in your region

 

Fixes

Fixed annoying bug where the suggested credits in the trade window would not result in a "fair" trade

Fixed typos

Fixed an issue where a ship wouldn't be award by events if you were Altarian

Fixed some bad prereqs on the economic starbase module

Fixed a fog of war issue in mp restored games

Fixed an issue that could cause stuck turns in multiplayer

Fixed crashes storing stat history

Fixed an exploit where players could circumvent range with rally points

We no longer show an out of range message if the ship you have selected isn't one you own

Fixed an issue where the turn count on research wasn't correct

Fixed an issue that could cause sound popping when opening windows

Fixed a crash when the starbase queue got to long

Fixed an issue where the background on the diplomacy screen goes black if you close and open it to fast

Fixed a crash if you request to many constructors from a starbase

Fixed a crash when destroying a planet

Fixed a crash when loading a save

Fixed a crash caused by the AI manipulating the sponsor list directly instead of in a buffer

Fixed crash if you had prefs with no valid players listed at all

Fixed an issue where deleting a unique colony improvement allowed you to rebuild it on every colony

Fixed a crash if the game is ended while there are popups in the popup queue, and some popup insert order fixes

Added a check to gray out Yor assembly projects so that you cant run them when your population is already capped

Fixed crash if you obsoleted every ship, waiting enough turns for the designs to be deleted, then opened the designer wnd and selected "upgrade ship", caused by the screen not having a "nothing selected" state

Fixed bug where manually cancelling an alliance treaty didn't actually change the diplomatic state between the two factions from allied

Added a better system for collision detection (ie: when the player needs to be informed because a decision must be made like an invasion, battle, etc)

Fixed an issue where some players dont have any UI if they don't have permission to write to their game directories

Fixed an issue where low end Intel cards would have their defaults set higher than recommended for a card with no video memory

Fixed an issue keeping the Drengin from building the Restaurant of Eternity

Fixed issue were solar power planet was being blocked by antimatter power plant

Fixed an issue where corrupt ship designs would be created if you had a UP popup while in the ship designer screen

Fixed an issue where a game can continue receiving event messages even after exiting a multiplayer game. This usually caused a crash. 

 

Balance

Ship Graveyards are somewhat more common

Ship graveyards only have 2 pirate attackers instead of 3 now

Rush cost multiplier reduced from 15X to 10X

Population exponent to production changed from 0.7 to 1.0

Population to production multiplier changed from 2.0 to 1.0

Base resistance on colonies changed from 50% to 25%

40% to 60% approval has no affect or penalty on production anymore

Adaptive Farm food reduced from 4 to 3

Intensive Farm food reduced from 6 to 4

Lossless Farm reduced from 8 to 5 food

Cargo (trade) module cost reduced from 27 to 10

"You are weak" modifier no longer a factor early game

"You are ripe for conquest" modifier only a factor mid game and on

Fair trade is now a <= comparison rather than a < comparison

Map sizes balanced more based on their actual sizes

Habitable planet creation balanced for larger maps

Time before first shot lowered from 3 seconds to 1 second

Min small explosions increased from 1 to 2

Medium ship explosions decreased from 14 to 5

Engine trail vertices reduced from 1000 to 100

Carrier modules reduced from 3 units to 2 units

Kinetic weapons increased in cost but reduced in mass requirement

Rebalance on resource required improvements

Updated Yor Techs and Improvements to limit Yor Population cap to a max of 48 from 60

Nerfed Prolific Ability from +100% to +50% population on colonization

Renamed Prolific Ability to Abundant since it was named the same as the Prolific Ability, Nerfed it slightly from +5, to +3 population on colonization

Bump up Mass of Mass Drivers, kept them flat, so they don’t get heavier, but made them all 10 instead of 6, as it was with miniaturization mass driver races could get a singularity driver down to 3.5 which more or less meant they could out gun anything in the galaxy. As they are now they are a bit heavy for their damage to start, but become better and better as you go up the tree. Even at 10 they might be a bit 0P.

Bumped up railgun damage 1, and lowered stinger damage by 2

Changed Agile trait to use flat modifiers

 

AI

AI places less emphasis on capturing resources (fewer constructors running around)

AI more aggressive at decommissioning old ships

AI more careful about constructing fleets based on what it can reasonably afford

AI more likely to build approval buildings

The AI may contact you to warn abotu another players military buildup, or to provide help if you are at war with them

AI invasion fleets are better at taking vulernable planets

AI less interested in distant targets

AI better at massing fleets to attack enemies rather than one-offs

AI more effective in using money (should no longer sit on large treasuries)

AI is now allowed to rush more than once across its empire

 

UI

Total Production tooltip changed to Total Manufacturing where relevant

Raw research and Raw manufacturing changed to Base research and base manufacturing

Research rate changed to Civilization Ability tooltip

A declare war theme now plays when the AI declares war on the player

The collapsible ship part entries in the Ship Designer no longer blink when collapsing/expanding entries

The Go To button now works for "Starbase built in your territory" notifications

Prevented warnings from appearing every time players start a game. They only appear the first time now

 

Performance

Translation table is now multithreaded to speed up launch time

Removed some debug messages

Tachyon authentication is now multithreaded to speed up game launch time

Fixed leaking refs in gizmo gfx

Fixed leaking refs for selected component in ship designer

Fixed leaking refs for focus node in battle viewer camera updater node

Removed creation of unused render targets, and code for writing to them

856,340 views 212 replies
Reply #51 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting SorrowKnight, reply 39



Carrier modules reduced from 3 units to 2 units



I think... Carrier rebalance shoud go another way. May be it shoul have much more fighters (about 10-15 per module), but(!!) that fighters should be a tiny size, whith maximum 2/1/1 attack and 1/1/0 defence or something about this. So we`ll have Carriers, that send into battle masses of small, fragile and weak in single use fighters, that have only one task- fight enemy fleet before it come into main ships weapon range, but almost whithout chanses to kill something.

That's a really good idea!

Reply #52 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Mascrinthus, reply 41

Has anyone experienced freezes while playing the game, in particular while scrolling the map?  I'm playing an a Lenovo Yoga 2 with only 4GB of ram.  Due to its limited memory I have been only playing the Tiny or Small maps.  This Lenonvo still has all the manufacturer's bloatware installed so maybe I can save memory by disabling some services from running on startup.  I also have not updated the drivers on this machine; often updating the video driver helps with problems.  Any hints and tips would be most appreciated.

 

I had this issue and it was solved by updating my NVidia drivers.

ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #53 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Ranger6, reply 48

"If you'd like a refund, I'm happy to provide it as long as you agree to leave and never come back and never purchase anything  ever again from us."

The guy paid 60 bucks for the game. It gives him the right to gripe. As for this being your house, how about you try to remember who paid for the house. Yeah, paying customers paid for your house. The guy has some valid concerns. Instead of attacking him for it, try to act professional and address him in a mature way. Maybe some classes in customer service and relations need to be given at Stardock.

I was actually enjoying the game and have been a fan of all Stardock games, but seeing that kind of response to a paying customer disgusted me. So how about you give ME a refund and ill promise to leave and never purchase anything from Stardock again. Sound fair?

There are other forums you can express yourself on.  So I guess the best route is to just show you the door.

Money is something invented so that we aren't trading chickens for goats.  If someone is unhappy with their trade they have every right to complain.  But don't kid yourself for a minute that someone buying a video game is somehow doing someone else a favor.  A trade occurred. Both parties are entitled to respect.

+2 Loading…
Reply #54 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Ranger6, reply 48

"If you'd like a refund, I'm happy to provide it as long as you agree to leave and never come back and never purchase anything  ever again from us."

The guy paid 60 bucks for the game. It gives him the right to gripe. As for this being your house, how about you try to remember who paid for the house. Yeah, paying customers paid for your house. The guy has some valid concerns. Instead of attacking him for it, try to act professional and address him in a mature way. Maybe some classes in customer service and relations need to be given at Stardock.

I was actually enjoying the game and have been a fan of all Stardock games, but seeing that kind of response to a paying customer disgusted me. So how about you give ME a refund and ill promise to leave and never purchase anything from Stardock again. Sound fair?

 

Chill a bit man. Frogboy did too - see the extended version of his post.

 

Can't say Im a fan of the expressed sentiment either, it brings up unpleasant memories of a certain Mecron around the time of a spectacularly bad launch of a different space 4X title. But Frogboy is not being all that unreasonable here. The person he responded to is indeed a 'paying customer', but the customer is not always right; in particular, the guy is complaining vocally about visual game improvements (explosion size adjustments, something which probably takes less than 5 lines of code being adjusted) being made in place of fixing a problem which doesn't actually exist (the research turn overflow thing). He then asks why a certain visual game bug (research being shown as grayed out) isn't being fixed yet...

Reply #55 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Ranger6, reply 48

"If you'd like a refund, I'm happy to provide it as long as you agree to leave and never come back and never purchase anything  ever again from us."

The guy paid 60 bucks for the game. It gives him the right to gripe. As for this being your house, how about you try to remember who paid for the house. Yeah, paying customers paid for your house. The guy has some valid concerns. Instead of attacking him for it, try to act professional and address him in a mature way. Maybe some classes in customer service and relations need to be given at Stardock.

I was actually enjoying the game and have been a fan of all Stardock games, but seeing that kind of response to a paying customer disgusted me. So how about you give ME a refund and ill promise to leave and never purchase anything from Stardock again. Sound fair?

He is not saying he can't express his concerns, he is admonishing him for being so unnecessarily rude while doing so. I found his response refreshingly honest and human compared to the usual PR blather. As for professionalism and maturity, I'm pretty sure most readers here would agree that Frogboy met that standard with his (admittedly unconventional) post. You are of course entitled to your opinion on the matter, we'll have to agree to disagree in this case.

Reply #56 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Also, I noticed the patch Nerfed both the Durantium Refinery and the Thulium Data Archive quite a bit.

Both had their adjancency bonuses reduced from +3 to +2.  And I think the Refinery's Base Manufacturing bonus went from +4 to +2.

I *think*, but have to verify, that you also tweaked the Manufacturing and Research Capital improvements.

Reply #57 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I think it should be also remembered that v1.01 came out last Thursday.  v1.02 is the result of 2 business days turn-around on a game that is, by any reasonable metric, in good shape.  These updates are being made because we're very passionate about our game and very loyal to our players.

That said, if someone buys a product or service and is unhappy, they have every right to complain about it within reason. It's when they start attacking the people making the product that I draw the line. I have very limited tolerance for that kind of thing.

 

Reply #58 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 24

If you'd like a refund, I'm happy to provide it as long as you agree to leave and never come back and never purchase anything ever again from us.

 

:frogboy: :frogboy: :frogboy: Way to go  :frogboy: :frogboy: :frogboy:

First time I ever saw low lose your cool ( yes, just a little bit) but deserved

 

I will confess to being one of those who thought release was a bit too early,  olny because of ill informed flames like this.  Are there still issues? Do we need further polish & balance?  It it sill unstable (at least for some of us >:( )  YES but there is a BIG BUT, show me another game this well rounder and complex that at release was not behind GC3 at its release in every respect.  Likewise, show me one that is addressing these kind of issues at the pace you are (for FREE i might add).  :thumbsup:

 

P.s. Don't you thing its about time to lose the "BETA feedback"  forum name, i mean we an't exactly in early access anymore? :O

Reply #59 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting dark3n24, reply 30

Shouldn't the Yor at least get a bonus to population caps on worlds? Considering that for the meat races all the pop cap improvement buildings were farms and Yor don't eat since they're robots I would think they should be able to support more base population on a world before needing to build something to increase living space instead, which is what I imagine to be their limiter.

 

We're looking at updating the balance on Yor population caps.  The issue is rising because as the AI gets better at using synthetic races, the Yor power is becoming more apparent.

It is ironic that we're going to have to patch the game not for a player exploit but an AI exploit. ;)

Reply #60 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting SorrowKnight, reply 39



Carrier modules reduced from 3 units to 2 units



I think... Carrier rebalance shoud go another way. May be it shoul have much more fighters (about 10-15 per module), but(!!) that fighters should be a tiny size, whith maximum 2/1/1 attack and 1/1/0 defence or something about this. So we`ll have Carriers, that send into battle masses of small, fragile and weak in single use fighters, that have only one task- fight enemy fleet before it come into main ships weapon range, but almost whithout chanses to kill something.

 

This would have the added benefit of giving more of a role to rapid-fire ballistics; firing a wave of huge missiles at tiny fighters results in quite a bit of overkill, with long reload times. Fighter-killers with ballistics would be able to take out more fighters with their quicker reload speed.

 

That is, unless the battle AI fleet targeting is clever enough to split up its fire to kill stuff 'just enough' by calculating how much damage needs to be done beforehand - which I suspect it may well be.

Reply #61 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

It's posts like these from Frogboy that made me fall in love with Stardock many many moons ago. That is also why I own nearly every game they have made in the last few years. It's good to see him standing up for all the employees of his that made this game. You attack his team and he's not going to take it. Bravo!

+1 Loading…
Reply #62 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting a0152570, reply 58

First time I ever saw low lose your cool ( yes, just a little bit) but deserved

;) If you stick around long enough you'll see it many times. 

In fact...

From Galactic Civilizations II I wrote a post on this very issue:

https://forums.galciv2.com/312130/ 

Basically, I'm here for you guys. That's what motivates me. I want to make cool stuff and have people play them. And criticism about what we make is something I like reading. It is when someone attacks our team's integrity ("I already been rather suspicious about SD after Elements initial fiasco, and now they doing exactly the same?"). Especially after Fallen Enchantress and Legendary Heroes.  That's a pretty low blow for someone to make on our own forum.
 


P.s. Don't you thing its about time to lose the "BETA feedback"  forum name, i mean we an't exactly in early access anymore? :O

The forum isn't highlighted but there will be new betas in the future. :)

Reply #63 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Ranger6, reply 48

"If you'd like a refund, I'm happy to provide it as long as you agree to leave and never come back and never purchase anything  ever again from us."

The guy paid 60 bucks for the game. It gives him the right to gripe. As for this being your house, how about you try to remember who paid for the house. Yeah, paying customers paid for your house. The guy has some valid concerns. Instead of attacking him for it, try to act professional and address him in a mature way. Maybe some classes in customer service and relations need to be given at Stardock.

I was actually enjoying the game and have been a fan of all Stardock games, but seeing that kind of response to a paying customer disgusted me. So how about you give ME a refund and ill promise to leave and never purchase anything from Stardock again. Sound fair?

 

It entitles him to nothing on a forums. Period.

Reply #64 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting TurielD, reply 60

This would have the added benefit of giving more of a role to rapid-fire ballistics; firing a wave of huge missiles at tiny fighters results in quite a bit of overkill, with long reload times. Fighter-killers with ballistics would be able to take out more fighters with their quicker reload speed.

 

That is, unless the battle AI fleet targeting is clever enough to split up its fire to kill stuff 'just enough' by calculating how much damage needs to be done beforehand - which I suspect it may well be.

never the less, i think, that my idea about carriers is... much better, than it is now... greater numbers of much weaker fighters will be more logical, than owerpowered killers to anything, that we have.

Reply #65 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 62

The forum isn't highlighted but there will be new betas in the future.

Oh, I think i get it  i.e. beta for DLC and expansions ?

 

 

MisterVertigo ...  k1

Reply #66 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

First of all, thanks so much for the awesome update!!!!   :grin:   I'm loving this game, and so, so appreciate all of the time and hard work the team has put into it!!!

 

Just to make sure this has been brought to someone's attention, I'm wondering if the following bug could be addressed in the 1.1 patch for June?  Every race EXCEPT the Altarians has a tech they can research to fully terraform ALL remaining hexes of a specific quality and below.  From what I've seen in the game, it seems like the Altarian tech "Biosphere Manipulator" (researched through the Paradise Worlds project) is intended to do this same thing--simultaneously terraform multiple low-quality tiles.  I base that assumption on the fact that it's very expensive to build, and is "colony unique."  However, that is not how it's working.  It's only terraforming ONE hex tile, and since it's unique, that's all you get out of it.

This puts the Altarians at a significant disadvantage in the mid-to-late game, because all of the other major races can terraform the heck out of every planet they've settled (sometimes adding 15 or 20 useable hexes), while Altarians can only terraform 5 or 6 more tiles on each planet than it started with.  It seems like either [1] Biosphere Manipulator needs to be updated to terraform multiple tiles at once, or [2] it needs to be altered to be non-colony-unique and much, much cheaper to build.  Either fix would appear to bring it more into balance with what is available to other factions.

Just hoping someone can show my favorite faction some terraforming love!  :inlove:

Reply #67 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 59

It is ironic that we're going to have to patch the game not for a player exploit but an AI exploit. ;)

That's just a sign that you guys created a truly b*tchin' AI.  ^_^

Reply #68 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

 

I remember reading that the AI would learn and improve - and learn from our play and adapt to that too - does that cross-propagate among players somehow, or is it on an install-by-install basis?

 

 

Reply #69 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Ranger6, reply 48

"If you'd like a refund, I'm happy to provide it as long as you agree to leave and never come back and never purchase anything  ever again from us."

The guy paid 60 bucks for the game. It gives him the right to gripe. As for this being your house, how about you try to remember who paid for the house. Yeah, paying customers paid for your house. The guy has some valid concerns. Instead of attacking him for it, try to act professional and address him in a mature way. Maybe some classes in customer service and relations need to be given at Stardock.

I was actually enjoying the game and have been a fan of all Stardock games, but seeing that kind of response to a paying customer disgusted me. So how about you give ME a refund and ill promise to leave and never purchase anything from Stardock again. Sound fair?

Bub bye now,,,no soup for you DH

Reply #70 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I think 1.02 goes overboard on nerfing star frequency.

I'm checking out the changes and I'm not sure if this is a joke or not :) Abundant stars on an immense scattered starmap looks to have less stars than a rare stars on scattered clusters from last build. 

I'm actually terrified to even look at the lower settings. Immense map is going to have like 20 star systems on rare stars?

Reply #71 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Right now (until the Steamworkshop stuff gets going) 90% of the AI improvement has come from people sending me saved games.

While I'm pretty decent at strategy games (I'm an active diamond league player in Starcraft 2) I'm no where near the best at GalCiv. Really good players were doing great stuff with the Yor and so I had the AI emulate their play style.

Reply #72 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Osbot, reply 70

I think 1.02 goes overboard on nerfing star frequency.

I'm checking out the changes and I'm not sure if this is a joke or not :) Abundant stars on an immense scattered starmap looks to have less stars than a rare stars on scattered clusters from last build. 

I'm actually terrified to even look at the lower settings. Immense map is going to have like 20 star systems on rare stars?

It is very possible it's too much.  We'll be reading feedback on it.

I'm just not sure how much "fun" there would be managing 6,400 planets (which is the number I counted in my tests).

There is a magic number in there somewhere. :)

+1 Loading…
Reply #73 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 62


Quoting a0152570,
reply 58

First time I ever saw low lose your cool ( yes, just a little bit) but deserved




;) If you stick around long enough you'll see it many times. 

In fact...

From Galactic Civilizations II I wrote a post on this very issue:

https://forums.galciv2.com/312130/ 

Basically, I'm here for you guys. That's what motivates me. I want to make cool stuff and have people play them. And criticism about what we make is something I like reading. It is when someone attacks our team's integrity ("I already been rather suspicious about SD after Elements initial fiasco, and now they doing exactly the same?"). Especially after Fallen Enchantress and Legendary Heroes.  That's a pretty low blow for someone to make on our own forum.
 



P.s. Don't you thing its about time to lose the "BETA feedback"  forum name, i mean we an't exactly in early access anymore? :O



The forum isn't highlighted but there will be new betas in the future. :)

 

Yea, the guy is a tool. I bought Elemental. While I didn't think it was amazing, I paid for it, I played it, I enjoyed it. 

I find out like 2 years later that SD felt Elemental wasn't up to standard and extended a FREE game to everyone who bought Elemental. Who does that? 

Reply #74 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 72

It is very possible it's too much.  We'll be reading feedback on it.

I'm just not sure how much "fun" there would be managing 6,400 planets (which is the number I counted in my tests).
There is a magic number in there somewhere. :)

Just for aesthetics and realism reasons, I'd prefer you did the balancing around the habitable planet frequency settings, rather than the star frequency settings. The galaxy really is full of stars, and it appears also (most likely dead) planets, but the best scientific knowledge we have at this point is that habitable (by our standards) planets are likely to be fairly rare. It also makes exploration more interesting in my opinion when you have lots of stars to go explore, but finding actual worlds you can colonize are the diamonds in the rough.

Reply #75 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 72


Quoting Osbot,
reply 70

I think 1.02 goes overboard on nerfing star frequency.

I'm checking out the changes and I'm not sure if this is a joke or not :) Abundant stars on an immense scattered starmap looks to have less stars than a rare stars on scattered clusters from last build. 

I'm actually terrified to even look at the lower settings. Immense map is going to have like 20 star systems on rare stars?



It is very possible it's too much.  We'll be reading feedback on it.

I'm just not sure how much "fun" there would be managing 6,400 planets (which is the number I counted in my tests).

There is a magic number in there somewhere. :)

I think you just need to tick the boxes on the different settings. If some lunatic wants 6400 stars, I say, dare to dream young man, dare to dream! Right now and for me, abundant looks just a little too sparse for my taste, and that is on the highest stock star frequency setting and I'd consider myself probably about middle of the road regarding how many planets I'd like to manage.

I'd guess that for me, my ideal is going to be about ~10 colonizable habitable planets per AI I am playing with which is around 30 atm. It's tough to work that optimal count out with the randomness of star and planet frequency.