eride

I really don't want to be blunt here... but no, that isn't remotely the same. Please explicitly list how Stardock has harmed you as a consumer by restricting the purchase of a single game for a limited period of time from being purchased from a single store front. The reason you need to actually state your (supposed) harm is because we do know the benefits Stardock is receiving from said agreement. And, these benefits flow downward to the end product we are receiving as consumers.&nbs

I think we as consumers, especially those of us that enjoy Stardock's games, need to remember that what is beneficial for Stardock is beneficial for us. If there is a clear business reason/advantage to using Epic over Steam, and the inconvenience to us is minor, why wouldn't you support Stardock? I'm going to reiterate that I can not understand the grandstanding by some Steam fanboys on this issue. It makes me think of the asinine Xbox versus Playstation arguments. Personally,

[quote who="DivineWrath" reply="1" id="3858252"] This run from battle ability needs to be fixed. It seems to make ships with it practically invulnerable. I also think it shouldn't be able to maintain a siege if it runs from battle. [/quote] This!

[quote who="Edonin the Magnificent" reply="4" id="3851298"] Each hull size has its own base slot capacity, so you could say that there are X slots designated for weapons and Y slots for defense, with larger hull sizes also having one or two "special" slots for amplifying/extending range, etc. (The extra slots you get from technology could be totally free slots, or they could be free for anything except "special.") This would do a couple of things. First, it would solve the "defense

[quote who="valkdrvr" reply="3" id="3857894"] I see a Mimot and switch everything to military production. Those furry cute-looking war mongers won't get me. You do bring up a good point though about them being war mongers. I'd like to know how the heck they get so far ahead so early [/quote] The two for one ability the Mimot have is very, very strong in the early game.

[quote who="Stalker0" reply="16" id="3856793"] One large ship with a lot of defenses (assigned as an escort ship role) combined wtih a fleet of small or tiny ships, with all offense, set to capital ship role. This means the large ship will soak all of the damage, while the tiny ships bang away undisturbed. [/quote] I understand the point of your post, but this is the current "meta" of the combat system and it only supports the idea that the entire combat syste

I wonder if this is an example of the downside of broad-engagement with fans from the start of the development cycle. Because of time constraints in real life, this is the most uninvolved I've been in a SD game's development in a decade so this is only based on my experience with the end product here and contributing in the process with other games.... The combat system appears to be something that in its entirety is clearly a mess and looks to have fallen victim to a c

[quote who="Halicide" reply="8" id="3856659"] I really do think we need a massive balancing overhaul to the combat system. [/quote] Not even a "balancing overhaul," just a complete scrap and redo of the system. IMO, I am finding this part of GC4 to be the most disappointing. It is easier to list flaws with the current system than positives. I reallyyyyyyy hope this is high on the list for addressing for the longevity of the game. I *a

This just happened to me. Hopefully Stardock is able to address this bug in the next patch.

I find it annoying as well but it is a risk of using a ship to scout.. is it not?

[quote who="MrStarTrek" reply="83" id="3855825"] One thing, you do not elaborate on what it is you find buggy and unpolished. At this point on Epic Games GalCiv4 is enjoying a player ratings of 4.3 out of 4.5 which is pretty darn good. Over all critic scores are mixed at best which was expected since much was changed in game look and games play mechanics. Looking at the reviews graph for GalCiv3 on Stream while it

[quote who="SDF-7" reply="61" id="3854874"] Just please don't assume people you disagree with are doing so for such vapid straw man reasons as "Another icon to click? Oh noes!". It does a disservice to your arguments since that's rarely the core of the issue for anyone. [/quote] I'm going to ignore most of your post as it mainly contains conspiracy theories, and an unnecessarily personal and insulting tone (which I did not appreciate). However, I did want to point ou

[quote who="TheNightman36" reply="59" id="3854708"] Everyone has their moral stances or whatever, so objecting on moral ground is something I can't really argue with. But when the only hurdle is "download this other free launcher", it seems like a lot of these complaints are a little bit much. [/quote] I'm not going to go back to credit the poster by name (it may have been Brad), but the post relating to games and the steam worksh

[quote who="TragicTheBlathering" reply="21" id="3854281"] great news... I still have the save and will try and get this up and running again soon! [/quote] Great news!!!

I completely agree with your point. I wouldn't mind a game setup option that disables only the AI claiming victory via prestige. IMO, the AI shouldn't be programmed to try to win via prestige so removing it should be only an improvement for scenarios like the Marmot being able to go ham on prestige points in the early game.

[quote who="TragicTheBlathering" reply="15" id="3853194"] Well I can not get any help on this.. so I guess the aar is over : ( [/quote] Nooooooooooo.

Awesome job!

4

4

Looks nice. I hope someone takes you up on it, as I will be downloading it. :)

Because I'm really interested to see what the response is..... #3

[quote who="Basilisk83" reply="1" id="3851971"] wow, yeah that sounds like a bug. i just dont think anyone has noticed cause no one usually uses those +30%/ -20%hp items i think cause they'd rather have the +20% with no hp loss. if this is intended to have a fleetwide effect it def needs to get put into the description, but i'm really guessing this is a bug [/quote] I think you are right, haha. I looked at that module and said "nope." I haven't come close to considerin

[quote who="gypsy2299" reply="37" id="3852148"] This was my thought that the TOS ruled regardless of the copyright laws. [/quote] As to the question of whether a user can force the platform to publish their design because they own a copyright to the design, that would be correct. Owning a copyright does not mean you can force a platform to publish your copyrighted work. Just clarifying the context because it is not always true that

[quote who="MrStarTrek" reply="32" id="3852138"] Jafo, I would like you to help us understand the difference between US copyright law, DMCA and international copyright law so we get it right the first time. I am somewhat familiar with US copyright law but could I use more information on DMCA and international copyright law. I would like whomever is selected including myself, if I'm allowed to become a workshop moderator, to be familiar with the differences should any moderator have to ta

In my opinion, no one should be posting modified designs of existing designs in the workshop outside of rare occasions. Cramming the workshop with copycat designs is not only unfair to the original creator, but it also reduces the usability for players. I don't want to have to scroll through a bunch of similar designs looking for "diamonds in the rough." I also don't want to have to rely on only looking at the highest rated designs and ignoring everything else. The more junk in