Home | Recent Posts New Topic
buddygezus
buddygezus
Join Date 02/2007
0

MCC is fixed for TA? Awesome, except I don't have it... :(

September 9, 2008 12:43:58 PM from Stardock ForumsStardock Forums

Anyone know if there is an MCC fix for regular GC2?  DA?  I have GC2 v1.5, do I need TA to get a working MCC?

Also, talking of upgrading, do I need DA to run TA?

Thanks all, you guys are the best.

Locked Post
Search this post
Advanced Search
Subscription Options
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
buddygezus
CaptainYar
Join Date 02/2007
+20
Reply #1 September 9, 2008 1:10:59 PM
from GalCiv II ForumsGalCiv II Forums

I believe the fix for DA is going to be in the 2.0 update / patch. And i do think you need to have DA on the same computer that TA is on to get TA running.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
buddygezus
Loupdinour
Join Date 11/2006
+72
Reply #2 September 9, 2008 4:52:08 PM
from GalCiv II ForumsGalCiv II Forums

Aye, TA requires DA to be installed.  Also aye to what Yar said about the 2.0 patch back-porting the MCC fix to DA.  I'm unsure though how much will get bakcported to DL as I think they removed that from all/some of the back-porting.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
buddygezus
Neilo
Join Date 04/2006
+128
Reply #3 September 15, 2008 5:54:39 AM
from GalCiv II ForumsGalCiv II Forums

The MCC "fix" backported to DA you say.....looks like i wont be installing 2.0 for some time then. I use the MCC in the giga abundant alls on DA. Once i am ready to finish those then i'll be on TA anyway.

 

Speaking of backporting but i'd like to see the TA ship jewelery in DA....

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
buddygezus
Loupdinour
Join Date 11/2006
+72
Reply #4 September 15, 2008 8:18:13 AM
from GalCiv II ForumsGalCiv II Forums

My mind and morals may be different here...but wouldn't refusing to patch up the game to fix a building to work properly because it's bugged effect works in your favor....exploiting a bug?

I know 2.0 isn't out yet...nor is an ETA for it...but I'm just talking hypothetical here.

I'm sitting here pondering these words...trying to find the most neutral way to have said it.  I don't wish for it to come out as calling you a cheater or bug exploiter...mosreso asking your opinion on this topic from how I'm seeing it.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
buddygezus
Neilo
Join Date 04/2006
+128
Reply #5 September 15, 2008 8:16:12 PM
from GalCiv II ForumsGalCiv II Forums

You came across just fine mate. No, i don't think not updating is anything of the sort. If i was submitting games with the broken Biosphere bug from TA then i think your point would be very much correct. But playing DA with game mechanics that are over 2 years old is different. The MCC has been "broken" the entire life of the game, i see it as that is just the way it is. I'm not sure that "fixing" the MCC after all this time is to say that it wasn't working properly (though of course the description was certainly wrong), just that SD feel it is time for that structure to be freshened up.

I don't think it is written anywhere that you must update. Sure by playing an old DL with the superpowerful Stock Market now would be exploitation, but in the months following it's (SM) upgrade, or downgrade i'm sure the games submitted in that time were not seen as exploitation.

I never update straight away anyway, the dreaded error 12 and pathfinder bugs ensured that i will wait some time before moving on.

Anyway, i assume the backport will not make it back as far as DL. I could just play that if i wanted to play a giga abundant A.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
buddygezus
DethAdder
Join Date 02/2004
+73
Reply #6 September 15, 2008 8:43:54 PM
from GalCiv II ForumsGalCiv II Forums

but in the months following it's (SM) upgrade, or downgrade i'm sure the games submitted in that time were not seen as exploitation.

I remember quite a few who refused to upgrade to, I think it was 1.4x?, because they didn't want the morale boost taken from the stock markets. There's probably a few who like having 900 planets and have kept the DA 1.5xx versions.

I've also learned to hold off on updating until getting a feel from the forums of when it's safe. In fact I think my TA is one version behind right now, but seeing as I have no glaring bugs or problems I don't feel it a bug necessity to update.

I actually don't mind if they leave DL as is. As I've said before it was the game that got me hooked and I don't feel it needs any major changes now(Hugs my GC2 DL CE Box ) . I look at DA and TA as almost seperate games or sequels the way they alter the gameplay.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
buddygezus
Neilo
Join Date 04/2006
+128
Reply #7 September 15, 2008 9:53:38 PM
from GalCiv II ForumsGalCiv II Forums

Ohh i'd love to play out a mumbler with waht we know now DA on DA1.5

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
buddygezus
Loupdinour
Join Date 11/2006
+72
Reply #8 September 16, 2008 7:59:16 AM
from GalCiv II ForumsGalCiv II Forums

I see where you're going with the MCC and it's LOOO<insert 1m more O's>OOONG legacy of being 'broke' and can understand.  The other thing that offsets the MCC (perhaps) is the Planetary Governer...something you have to put on the other scale.  Sure you can't pull off the same econ score, but you can cut SOO much time off your 'in chair' gameplay with that.

...which reminds me...they said more 2.0 info yesterday.  ~wanders off~

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v        Server Load Time:   Page Render Time: