Dev Stream (Friday, October 2nd) at 3pm EDT, Noon Pacific

Hmmm....Think I am feeling a little sick. May need to call in to work. LOL

It shall be grand to get the weekly dosage of illumination once again!

Hey Paul, 

Talk to us about 1.4!

Not 100% on point, but what happened to Adam?

I've got a couple Questions for the devstream

• Question1:  I have jump gates working well in a mod & probably in the next version of ILO (another mod).  I'd like to start at least the core races with a jumpgate, but there is no xml to pull  the syntax for a starbase & specific modules to hook into a modded StaticShipBlueprintDefs.xml.  The savegame files appear some kind of non-ascii thing, so I can't pull from there.  Can someone at stardock pretty please post the xml syntax for a starbase and a specific module (say a military or mining starbase with one other module of any type) so it could be used as a template to link FactionDefs.xml into?
• Question2: Can modders get a file we can add new or additional techtree branches, starting ships, new values to to starting pop/credits, and the like into that affects -all-local races?
• Take the jumpgate example, if I got the starbase xml code above, I could only add it to the  base races and am limited to using a base starbase model or non-base races might not have a model at all.
• Question3: there was a discussion a while back between a couple of the modders about wanting some of the stuff in GalCiv3GobalDefs.xml & factionDefs.xml to be added to the schema and give a way to modders to mod them globally for -any- race on the player's local install.  Right now we have a situation where:
• we "can" mod a lot of it (i.e. credits/starting pop), but it only applies to the core races & any workshop custom race has the values set when that race was created
• we can mod it for everyone (i.e. RequiredStarbsaeSpacing, & some others), but the values are not in the schema so we can only mod it through globaldefs.  can we get these values added to the schema along with that apply stuff to -any- race xml file above?
• Simple yes/no. Question4: This is Probably the -easiest- question .  it doesn't look like we are able to mod in extra resources at all, they are defined in -both- StrategicResourceDefs.xml as well as the schema in StrategicResourceTypess.xsd & StatTypes.xsd.  Can we get say 10 or so extra resources that simply -exist- but aren't actually used and let modders implement ways of getting them (i.e. buildings/starbase modules/whatever creates them rather than mining them).  These could be simple "ModderResource1, ModderResource2, ModderResource3, etc" and let modders give them logical names as they add the,m for whatever function they use them for

1.4 looks amazing.  This is the game I've been waiting months to actually play.

Replay is on YouTube.

Quoting Island, reply 7

Replay is on YouTube.

Thanks for the heads up. While watching it (I'm still in the process right now) I started LOL when Paul talked about the trading "bug" where the value of an item changes when you're getting offered something for it. I always thought that was by design!!! I was assuming they implemented a bartering system... Yes, a little annoying but once you learned the general accepted values you could just input that amount. So much for my role playing! lol

lol, no. It's due to the stacking penalty. The AI charges extra if you ask it for more than X things at a time, but the stacking penalty wasn't taken into account until the item was already in the deal - so if you added cash last, then it would offer you the 'correct' amount, and then immediately add a 10% surcharge once the item was added, making it suddenly cost too much.

It was a silly bug and made it look really unprofessional.

The stacking penalty is the thing that should be removed.  

God no. It's one of the only things that makes the AI harder to abuse. The AI is simply never going to be as good as a human on this side, and the stacking penalty is it's only serious defence aside from horrible 20-turn duplo lockouts.

It makes zero sense to have a stacking penalty on trading.  All it does is cause more micromanagement.  The AI can easily trade 2 items with another AI empire and I've seen it done.  The AI already has a decent enough logic (and improved in 1.4 from video) for trading things.  It doesn't give away bad trades so I don't see any issue why we need more useless micromanagement here.

Um... you're sure that you meant to post this in the GC3 forum, right?  

The diplo AI is very easy to exploit. More so than most 4Xes, in fact. You can sell it vast quantities of resources it just doesn't need, and it'll hand over ladles full of cash. It'll pay you good money for bilateral treaties that you clearly need and it gets no advantage from. You can spend the whole game just paying the AIs to go to war with each other, even if they hate you. If it weren't for the relations watersheds that physically remove certain treaty options from the menus, it would happily ally with you at negative relations (even though there's a value in another file that is apparently meant to stop it from doing so - this seems to have no effect). The AI is so easy to exploit, they added the diplo lockout timers - those would not exist if players hadn't pointed out how hilariously easy it is. Players can (and do) quite easy win the game in <100 turns on top difficulty levels using alliance victories, because manipulating the AI is so easy right now.

The stacking penalty also doesn't really add much micro presently, since the lockout timers prevent you from just doing the same trade over multiple consecutive turns, so you have to prioritize or accept price gouging. While I'd be thrilled to see the timer removed (because it's just an awful band-aid to deal with the diplo AI's weakness, and SD have been entirely open about that fact), it does have some benefits.

If we had a razor-sharp diplo AI that could judge the values properly (of the kind I'm about to argue can be done in the 1.4 thread with Macsen), then sure, we could ditch the stacking penalty because it would evaluate prices effectively by itself. Unfortunately, presently we don't, we can't and it doesn't. The stacking price penalty is the best defense the AI has against exploitation compared to the clunky, restrictive and at times ludicrous lockout timer.

I'm talking about tech trades.  Resources issue stem from way too many in the game.  If they were rare (like in my custom games) then you don't trade those away you actually trade for them.  So to clarify there shouldn't me stacking penalties in trading multiple techs back and forth.

That doesn't do anything about the other dozen areas where it remains completely exploitable. The AI would happily give you all it's techs for money even if it's coffers are overflowing. The stacking penalty at least allows it to price gouge you for having the nerve to do that.

The stacking penalty is effective and reasonable inobtrusive. I agree that ideally it won't be needed, but it should be one of the last crutches removed from the diplo AI; it's no-where near that stage yet and probably won't be for years (if it ever is).

So how does the stacking bonus work? From what ive heard it sounds like it increases the value of items traded for by the number of items traded for. 

If thats the case couldent it be exploited by simply offering multiple items? say 10 tiny hulled ships with no modules that i churn out in one turn?

These two lines:

As far as I can tell, it's one-way, so they'll gouge you but not accept being gouged, and the AI applies it for every item after the first - so two items cost 25% more than they should, three items is 50% more etc.

Item values are also modified by relations, so people who dislike you charge more for goods; unfortunately, this appears to work both ways with things like treaties, so the AI will always value your exploration treaty as equal to it's own regardless of where relations lie (xenophobes get a separate modifier to make them charge much higher).

I am a bit worried that the lead designer on this game spends more time watching the AI than playing the game itself during these streams it seems. However, that kind of makes sense in why it was so broken for so long...

Lead designer. Please play a bit more, and leave the programming and annoying work to the plebs? ok?

He only does that because it is hard to talk and play at the same time. It does not mean that he doesn't play the game.

Yeah, in earlier streams, he tried to play and talk at the same time and ended up doing neither well.  He really likes the game and gets caught up in it. 

Quoting erischild, reply 20

Yeah, in earlier streams, he tried to play and talk at the same time and ended up doing neither well.  He really likes the game and gets caught up in it. 

Imagine that!

I can't wait for the release. Any date for the opt in?

Wish the opt in was today or tomorrow as this weekend is the first one I'll have lots of free time to play.

i believe they said they were hoping to have 1.4 towards the end of the month i would expect the opt in to be at best a week before that (if at all) 

With as big of change that it is, you would think SD should do a week or two of opt in just to ring it out.