Galactic Civilizations III v3.04

Derek is their an opt-in?

Will the hardlock for maps be removed completely as asked by many?

No, not yet. I plan to have one up this week.

I wasn't planning on that. The problem is that we want insane map sizes and players for people with high end hardware but we don't want people without that hardware to start games their computer can't handle (we've had that, they end up having a poor game experience, writing negative reviews, etc). It's often non-obvious to a player that their computer can play a graphic heavy game like Fallout 4 but not GC3. They often incorrectly believe its because the game isn't optimized, or some other unrelated reason.

So I worry a lot about providing a good gameplay experience for all players. And if I'm going to disappoint a player I would rather have it be at the start, when he knows he can't start a game, then after he has committed 8 hours to a game and now turn times or memory constraints make it unplayable. The first issue is annoying, the second would make me want to throw my computer through a window.

There may be a middle road. Maybe an option you can set that allows you to ignore minimums, or a command line switch. Maybe we don't block the game, instead we just come up with a big warning saying we highly recommend lower settings. But I'm trying to be thoughtful about the guy that doesn't understand the implications of a truly large scale strategy game (most players aren't here reading the forums, they just bought a game they want to play) and making sure he has a good experience.

If I was to do any of them I would probably do the command line switch. Just because if you find out about it I know you came to the forums and you did some digging to figure out the implications of the change you are making (ie: the casual player would still be bound by the restrictions, but the hardcore could bypass it if they wanted).

This, as soon as possible plz. I would also couple it with a pop up once the game is booted just to make sure the user does completely understand they have void thier tech support or some such.

I really don't understand how you can prefer offering service to players who write bad reviews on Steam forums instead of offering services to long time fans who never reach support for anything and help you building a community with maps and modding.

You restrict also them, even if they want to play on an immense map with just two nations for testing purposes.

It's plain wrong in my opinion and I simply can't be happy about it in not a single way.

It's my choice to buy your "product" or your piece of art and use it as intended. I bought GC III on release day and all DLC as well.

It's actually not even your business if I use your software on a toaster. This is something I strongly disagree with in general.

Just to play immense maps or make them myself. I was able to do this without issues for years and now I cannot even start a map in the size I want.

It's politics. I hate politics. I run away from it in real  life to play games.

People who can't read a warning but can write a Steam review? You believe that?

I don't.

I don't like this policy at all, not the way it went to, not the command line.

A big fat warning or ten warnings I can absolutely live with. That restricts no one.

Thank you for understanding.

I understand why SD locked out larger map sizes, but this part of your argument is disturbing. You bought a game, got hooked into a game and then one day find the developer locked you out of a significant part of that game. Not many software products could get away with arbitrarily limiting use after purchase. It's very deceptive.

I'd be more motivated to write a bad review if I couldn't even play the game vs sluggish performance.

Please get rid of that restrictive map feature and replace it with a simple warning.

Command line is fine. Everything else is just whinging for more.

^^^^^^^^^

This, this please.

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. I have seen a significant number of reviews specifically mentioning instability and crashing, some of them even state in their review they were playing a very large map sizes and post they have 8 GB of memory! If you want Stardock to be able to keep updating the game, that requires developers. Developers require money. There won't be any money if the reviews are negatively bombed by players who have a bad experience because they picked a game mode that their computer can't support. Many companies would never even offer these options, knowing that the vast majority of Steam users don't have the computer specs to run them. 

It is a lot more nuanced than Stardock trying to take something from you. I mean, Stardock doesn't even have a reason to take something from you.. that doesn't even make sense. I think the smart move would be if Stardock never offered an option that needs that much memory to anyone. I am glad they are the type of company that does things for the fans that aren't always the smart, or safe, call.

I don't have a strong opinion either way on the locking, I can see both sides of the argument. Unfortunately the game will continue to remain unplayable for me personally, regardless of any other considerations, until this is addressed (quoting from Page 3 of the Version 3.03 thread):

Reduced memory requirements on Immense maps from 16Gb to 12Gb?

My game still shows 24Gb required for Immense maps? Any thoughts?

Yep - the *** UNRELEASED *** thing....

Useless Stardock, haven't released the update yet, haven't changed the "AI ignores range penalty" thing, etc etc...

I'm on the side of the argument that says "I'd be less pissed off if I found out I can't play a certain map to start with rather than after 8 hours of hard planning and scheming and building and killing and going well in the game and suddenly the game goes black or just gets really, really slow or even freezes". Either way, the game might end up getting thrown out/sold second hand, but still, faced with both options, I'd rather the first option.

But, yep, it'd be good to have a way to get around that if I really, really wanted to - so yes, add a command line for those of us who like making our computers feel pain.

I get why it was done but us hardcore players would like a bone thrown to us in the form of something to switch it off. Placed somewhere that is out of the way but those of us in the know can go over and flip the switch and enjoy the game the way we always have. It is sad that games have been dumb-down to please the masses with various hand holding and other things just to make a dollar but I get why it happens. It just would be nice to have a way to go back the old school method. 

For a real bug that could be fixed in 3.04, @DaloLorn in the Discord channel reported this problem with the Hyperion Shipyard:

Lots of very passionate feedback. thank you, and I hear you.

I'm playing with a few ways to allow you to bypass the minimums (it will probably be a command line switch).

@Publius of NV- Thanks for that bug report, I'll check it out.

Opt-in has been released (the Hyperion Shipyard fix didn't make it in time for the build so that will go into tomorrows Opt-in update).

+1 for command line option, FWIW.

Any progress on the Unknown Ship Style error from this thread? https://forums.galciv3.com/489456/page/1/#3717320 At this point I'm almost resigned towards rebuilding the ship set anyway, just hoping the save file was able to point you guys towards a cause for it to prevent it from happening more. Or even just limit the "damage" to the invalid ship itself and not the whole set.

Can you confirm, @Derek Paxton, if the very noticeable slowdown of AI processing turns has been addressed?

Its... disruptive

I'm a very open minded person myself, and a strong individual as well. I have much respect for developers who search the edge of what is possible. Without Stardock we did not had Elemental, a catastrophe for some, a masterpiece for others. And without Elemental we did not had Fallen Enchantress. A game I still play.

I had the top review for Sorcerer King for a while, I also love that game and buy every game from this company at release, including all DLC and bonusses if available.

I write about it, post screenshots, make some levels/mods, give suggestions to developers and promote their games to my friendlist etc etc

That is something I do since I play PC games and I will always do.

There are a few things that I think a producer, developer and or shop needs to stay away from. My hardware configuration, my privacy, my way of playing a game.

Many games are scripted, streamlined "experiences" nowadays and I what I look for are gems like Stardock makes them. Old skool with some of the best UI's and modern games. I want to start immense maps from scratch and eventually play till my system can't handle it anymore. If I feel it's MY time to upgrade I will do. But I will not do it forced for a product what is already two years WORKING on my HD.

I refuse to take into account that waves of horrible reviews on Steam. Please don't take them serious. Find your own ways to give your games the attention what they deserve. Curators, Youtubers, magazines (like Explorminate).

I refuse to take into account the payment of developers. It's sad, but that's not my concern. It's their concern. I'm just a fellow customer that buy their games. That's the best thing to do to help them.

It's not new that games are released beyond system specs from generic PC users. Unreal. It was simply only working for 10 % of the users. Civilization large maps? You always had the option in the screen, but you always had the out of memory map errors late ingame. It's for every 4x strategy game. There will be a point that your system can't handle it anymore. Don't like this? Please go play console games.

I'm probably getting old. I have an old skool system, have old skool ideas and want my gaming experience stays at it is.

I see new technologies arising. Like playing games directly from a server with 64 GB of ram. Probably that will be the future. No games on my HD anymore. No experimenting, no freedom, no right to crash your own system anymore?

I have to review my opinion probably. I have to take my loss.

It was one of the unpleasant moments in twentyfive years of gaming experience to find out that a game I played for years, suddenly propmted me a hardlock that let me play only the tiniest maps. It made me even think if gaming is still something for me. With a library with over thousand games.

I will see what happens. The right to use GC III is somewhere in my library. It's uninstalled. It will stay that way till the options aren't greyed out anymore.

Whatever command line you all will introduce. Good luck with your next pojects!

Derek, (my sons name btw)

Thanks for the update. I am a hard core Insane (see Ludicrous) map player. In fact I mod Ludicrous UP as far as it will go and then play from there. Thank you for keeping that option in. 

I7 8700K OC'd to 4.8

32 gigs Corsair DDR4 @ 3200

GTX 1070 superclocked.

M.2 drive for Windows

850 EVO for Gal Civ, Civ 6, Xcom, Battletech, SCO, and ESO. I did reinstall Witcher 3 as well. I might also reinstall SwTor....

Will someone poke the (stardock) tech nerds and ask them where I can find a good 31 or 32" 1440P Monitor @144hz with Gsync...

Any chance we will get repeating project logic into this patch?

https://forums.galciv3.com/489566/page/1/#3717902

So how do I use the command line for the map unlock? 

I think it's not added to 3.04 yet. Derek stated that he's still experimenting with different solutions.

Let's hope they get their common sense back and go for the warning screen.

Yeah, I'm going to see about getting the optin updated today so you guys can start playing with it. Once it is you just add that as a command line parameter and you will be able to bypass the min specs.

We have a few here so I will ask and PM you