Upset @ the new updates (was playing 1.1)

from GalCiv2 Forums
First off, galactic civilizations is a -great- game, very fun and I play it and civilization 4 often.

I am very upset at diplomacy trades becoming -worthless- I updated my game this week & I came here to find out why all of a sudden any trade done is insanely rediculous. The patches have taken a LARGE section of the game out. I would like the ability to undo the trade nerf as an optional patch. If players are cheating/exploiting selling planets and converting them back or via war, they are -choosing- to abuse the game. You can ruin your game, i long ago found out about that and intentionally don't abuse the glitch, learn some control. This game is made for single player, eliminating diplomacy has really taken alot of the game out for me as I am a more peaceful player, don't ruin part of the game for us players because powergamers choose to abuse the AI. I'm really upset by this, i enjoy Gal Civ 2 immensly, but without diplomacy Civ4 is a more enjoyable game.
My current game, I am unable to trade a military starbase AND a research starbase for a military starbase in my sector, the computer should /jump at that chance considering the military is in his that I control. Same for buying / selling influence. I like to buy up alot of influence for the votes.

If players choose to exploit the AI with diplomacy IT IS A CHOICE! don't take away diplomacy for those of us who enjoy it and use it normally.

Please offer a Patch to revert to old AI values in trade, I like the new /random options and improved ai, I don't want to undo it just to get a normal diplomatic game back.
16,703 views 28 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
huh? if you're still playing 1.1, update the darn game man.

Still, an update from 1.1 to 1.3 is a HUGE update with many many changes, so you'll just have to adjust.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
JJ, he's complaining about having updated, and crying "nerf".

And to think I left that with City of Heroes...

It's not happening pal. By all means, feel free to revert to 1.1. But I doubt Cari and the rest of the team would find it worth it to undo some specific changes and then host a patch for a small minority.
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm simply upset at removing normal diplomacy from the game. This isn't crying, I enjoy diplmacy / tech victory vs war (usually lol). The update is great, and the diplomacy changes were so players didn't -abuse- it, i didn't. its an obvious exploit. To completly (effectivly so) remove viable diplomatic trading, is basically a wargame with little to no diplomatic options
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Tegga21,

It is a single player game, but there is the metaverse to consider.  If you don't play the metaverse, you could mod the data files and probably achieve most of what you want to do.  You couldn't do much about the value for trading starbases, unfortunately. 

There would really be too much overhead if we had to maintain two patches or make that sort of thing optional. 

We tried to make GalCiv2 a lot more data driven than GalCiv1 so that more modding is possible, but we just didn't have time to change everything.

Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm simply upset at removing normal diplomacy from the game. This isn't crying, I enjoy diplmacy / tech victory vs war (usually lol). The update is great, and the diplomacy changes were so players didn't -abuse- it, i didn't. its an obvious exploit. To completly (effectivly so) remove viable diplomatic trading, is basically a wargame with little to no diplomatic options


I didn't play 1.1, I joined just after 1.2 was released, so I don't know how much diplomacy changed between 1.1 and 1.3. Even though most forum people would agree that the diplomacy isn't that great, we just make do with it. Also, the diplomacy will be highly revamped and enhanced in the Dark Avatar expansion.

Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Thanks smj, it IS a great game, removing diplomacy took alot away for me. Voicing my opinion, flaming irrelevantly is rather pointless.

I want to trade a military resource and research resource starbase to the AI who have a military resource in mine, while mine are in there's. should be a pretty acceptable or close to acceptable trade. They get 2 for one, not to mention more homefield bases.

Donating planets on the edge of my influence to AI's on my borders for diplomatic relations is almost completly pointless now. If someone gave ME a planet, i'm sure going to like them ALOT more.

I hope someone has a mod that makes diplomacy values back to a (somewhat normal value) or the expansion does so. As is, it feels like Gal Civ is merly disguised /kill everyone game if you want to change or do anything with no real trading possible
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I agree with the original poster.

Kudos to Stardock for the free patches, they do try very, very hard to please there customers. Above and beyond the call of duty.

BUT

From a patch update I personally want better AI, bug fixes, perhaps the odd extra feature. Examples of good content in GC 2 updates r :-

Improvements in the AI, so it plays a better game.
Improvements in modding, the modding example in 1.2.
Changing ship combat so both fleets fired at the same time.
Extra levels of difficulty.
Introduction of the pre-cursor library.

I do not want a patch to downgrade or destroy game features that r popular and well liked, JUST BECAUSE THE AI CANNOT EASILY BE MADE TO USE THEM AS WELL AS A PLAYER CAN, sorry to shout, but I hate it when developers take the easy way out and just downgrade/nerf/break a feature in a game I like. Why not try to make the AI use it better instead. Make the AI copy tactics used by the best GC2 players.

Examples of bad content in GC 2 updates r :-

Destroying diplomacy/trade between the player/AI.
Making resource mining bases weaker and weaker.
Making the entire morale buildings pointless.
Stopping creation of 100b pop. planets.
Making military starbases weaker.
Making Neutral Learning Centers weaker.

This is of course my personal view. If I took longer to think about it, I am sure I good come up with loads more good/bad content. I hope more players give there view on what is good/bad content in a patch/update.

One final word, how is what goes into a patch/update deceided?
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I have deleted your post Evil Stormbringer, and the ones referring to it.  I was not amused, but I don't want a flamewar starting it so all of you behave yourselves.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I agree megobob. I found out early on about trade bug when i sold a planet for some tech and it converted back in a couple turns. I never did it again. I do (occasionally) trade resource+(stuff) for resources that are better located for me. and I donated planets often, taking over a civ, donate some of the planets taken to my allies so they wouldn't hate me. Now they could care less, even though the planets are in no danger of cultural conversion
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Given that there is no MP in this game- what point is there to put a feature in that the AI can't use well? All it does is make the game easier for the player, which can be acheived with a lower difficulty.

Part of me really feels that MP would expose this game some- as I could see potential for a lot of crazy stuff in a MP environment. (SMAX was like this as well- played a couple MP games with friends and we came up with some crazy stuff using the unit designer and exploits)

Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I don't know what he's upset about. I think the AI makes pretty reasonable trades in 1.31. I'm playing at Crippling level now, so the AI is not gimped up too much. When I get techs/goods/etc. that boost my Diplomacy level I can definitely see the difference when making trades.
Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hmmm are trades more reasonable in crippling? I'll give it a try, I play @ challenging or the next step up
Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
To the OP, I do not agree that this is a bad thing. Diplomatic victories are fixed and the game is a lot more balanced (but needs a bit more work too). The trading is another matter and I am in two minds about it. I honestly think though on the balance of it, the Dev's made the right choice in what they did.

Games are now, slower, harder and significantly more challanging in many areas. The bugs are almost gone and the balance is nearly right, I feel. Yes some disagree but a games developer will never satisfy everyone. If they did they would be the richest software company on earth
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hmmm are trades more reasonable in crippling? I'll give it a try, I play @ challenging or the next step up


I'm not saying that it isn't a lot different from 1.1 because I can't remember that far back. All I am saying is that in 1.31 the trades appear to be fair. If your diplomacy level is roughly equal to the AI, then they will trade you almost 1 for 1 (with respect to tech RP cost) for non-weapon techs. I find that they ask for much more from you when requesting weapon techs, especially if no other AI races have that tech yet. Planetary Invasion also seems to be a special case where the AI is downright unreasonable in what they want in return. Also remember to try adding a little cash to your offer - sometimes adding 70 to 100 bucks will make the AI accept a 1 for 1 trade (don't know why... maybe they have a slight diplomacy level edge).
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
As for not being able to trade starbases fairly with other civs, how about the alternative of allowing influence to flip starbases in addition to planets?
Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Planetary Invasion also seems to be a special case where the AI is downright unreasonable in what they want in return

IF you can get them to trade at ALL. IIRC and I may not recall correctly, but the changes were that "AI now values certain techs more" Such as weapons and logistics. Its not a fair trade IMO, and I didn't like those changes. I have learned to deal with them and play the game.
Reply #17 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm not talking tech. Anything but tech. Tech is the same. I usually play no tech trading though, I like a slower paced game

Influence, donating planets, trading starbases for starbases is not feasible now. I just played crippling diff, /very fast, Teched a ton of +diplo, took +diplo ability, 'our incredible diplomatic advantage... etc'

they offer 16 BC for 20k influence, they want rougly 1.5bc per influence they sell
they won't accept an economic starbase + morale starbace + 2 of my planets + all of my fleets + 20,000 bc for a morale starbase
Reply #18 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
(they only have 1 planet btw, and 2 ships)
Reply #19 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
they won't accept an economic starbase + morale starbace + 2 of my planets + all of my fleets + 20,000 bc for a morale starbase


U can offer them yr entire empire, I have offered 50+ planets, 6+ fully maxed mining resources, lots of money, all my trade goods, ships etc for a single mining resource base or to declare war on another AI. Not interested, even thou it would win them the game.

It's a 'tad' stupid and makes a mockery of the otherwise excellent AI.

It as been discussed before, many times.

But the developers Stardock and majority of players seem to like it the way it is, so it will not change. Most players seem to want the game to develop in the future this way.
Reply #20 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The AI does not trade fairly at all. Even when I have all the diplomacy techs and related special projects, the ratio seems at least two to one. If I want a tech they have, I usually have to give them 2 techs of equal value, sometimes 3 or 4. Personally, I agree with reply #7 from megablob. I felt was a 1.2 was a more enjoyable game. Others feel the game is more balanced and more challenging. To me, it just feels long and tedious. I've started and given up on several 1.3 games because I've lost interest. Didn't have that problem with 1.2.

Reply #21 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Trading planets as a means of diplomacy never sat well with me. Resource mining starbases ok, but having the AI accept me giving two planets to them for the price of one isn't...realistic.

Would the United States trade Alaska just because Europe was willing to give us Spain and Portugal?

That was a tongue in cheek example, but I wouldn't think such planet trades would ever be taken lightly. I don't think that it ruins diplomacy to not be able to do such things.
Reply #22 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Would the United States trade Alaska just because Europe was willing to give us Spain and Portugal?


I think the US would bite Europes hand off.  

They have not had a trade has good as that, since the indians sold the land present day new York sits on.
Reply #23 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I am glad that Stardock are doing things to stop the exploiters of the game in order to make the Metaverse scores fairer.
However, in my first game in 1.3 I am finding it less enjoyable.
Possibly because it is a real struggle to get my Empire up and running.
Early days yet.
Reply #24 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think the AI is that unreasonable and stingy with the other AI's tech-wise as well, so it's not so bad... As for Planetary invasion would you trade that tech for Xeno Farming, or Laser V?

Reply #25 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Would the United States trade Alaska just because Europe was willing to give us Spain and Portugal?


I don't believe the op's argument was trading planets, but donating them to foster better relations. For instance, if early on, you see the civ you want to ally with is in a weak position, I'll hand over planets to make a stronger bond...

Though since the update to 1.3 I've noticed they haven't shown me much love for it.