The question you need to ask yourself, and I mean everyone who has a complaint about the system, is how important getting the system changed is to you. Is it extremely important and should be given top priority, or is it just something you'd like done?
If it is extremely important to you, I'm sure Stardock will try to address the issue. If not, I believe they currently have other projects that need their attention.
        
| |
|
| The question you need to ask yourself, and I mean everyone who has a complaint about the system, is how important getting the system changed is to you. Is it extremely important and should be given top priority, or is it just something you'd like done?If it is extremely important to you, I'm sure Stardock will try to address the issue. If not, I believe they currently have other projects that need their attention. |
|
Here's the rub: it's not that important for *this* game. I had my fun and games with GC many moons ago. However, it is indicative of a sloppy design since most of the problems were kludge fixes and often knee-jerk introductions of, admittedly fan requested, changes. It's not as if some/most of these problems couldn't have been tested with simulations prior to implementing them into code. There is a difference between continual support for a year and continual beta testing, and when it comes to the "multiplayer" side of GC, that's all it's ever been and there are still new, "major" flaws arising.
I am not so blindly worshipping of Stardock in relation to GC, OD, or anything else they do as some are. I've been a subscriber for a few years and I'm beginning to seriously question how much of their selling image is just that: image. Many if not most of their ODNT products remain perpetually unfinished. No matter how fun GC is, there are still numerous unfinished elements that apparently will never be finished.
It isn't continued support your money buys, it's continued development. Some may like it, some may love it, but some others might appreciate them actually finishing a product.
In a real world sense I fully understand the problems of budgets of money and time. However, as a customer, I also understand the importance of meeting goals. I consider the metaverse a very integral part of the GalCiv "experience" and it's been half-assed the whole time GC's been out.
   
| |
|
I agree, if it is a choice between resources being allocated between GC1 metaverse and GC2 then it should go to the development of GC2.
     
| |
|
And remember that the alternate meta ( Link ) can be adjusted or adapted as required without Brad (and teams) involvement.
Alex
   
| |
|
| And remember that the alternate meta ( Link ) can be adjusted or adapted as required without Brad (and teams) involvement. |
|
It is good work Alex.
I remember when I first saw the alternate Metaverse members of our Emipire that seen the Metaverse as a barrier saw there names in the top positions of some of the lists. I think it has more data and meaning than the Metaverse.
 
| |
|
#55
by Citizen Dracil - 5/8/2004 3:09:00 PM
| No, they probably wouldn't. When they start playing again in the 14th month their score is the total [total aged scores]/[sqrt of games played] |
|
Say what? I thought that calculation was for each month. And then you summed up the score of each month (with each month further adjusted for age). Interesting...
[Message Edited]
 
| |
|
| Say what? I thought that calculation was for each month. And then you summed up the score of each month (with each month further adjusted for age). Interesting... |
|
Scoring has always been total score (adjusted for age)/square root of the games played. What is changed with dropping scores completely is that if you stop for a year you are genuinely back at ground zero since nothing is dragging you down. Of course this also means your prior efforts were pointless.
| |
|
| Scoring has always been total score (adjusted for age)/square root of the games played |
|
I also thought that it was divided into months first. If this is the case, then I don't think I like any adjustment for age.
    
| |
|
| I agree, if it is a choice between resources being allocated between GC1 metaverse and GC2 then it should go to the development of GC2. |
|
I think that the Metaverse, wether for GC, GC2, or PM, is still an important issue. If the resourses are devoted to GC2, then the Metaverse issues need to be addresses at least for GC2.
| |
|
#59
by Citizen Dracil - 5/9/2004 7:31:04 PM
Hmm, I agree then. If this is the case, I wouldn't like aging at all.
| |
|
I think the thread has got of topic. It was opened as an observation, if you play for along time more than 331 days your scores get dropped.
If Stardock only changed the Metaverse code so any game no matter how old well be kept I be happy.
I can not see this small request using up much of their time.
[Message Edited]
| |
|
I've included this in the latest issue of the Metaverse Review. Link
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Well something is still wrong... I duno what.. see msg thread "Metaverse woes" I lost 2 games yesterday.. and i duno where... i was on 49 games next I posted another game and I droped back to 47 .. (I've since posted banother 2 games so i'm back up to 49)
| |
|
| The 331 day issue has been fixed. |
|
| Well something is still wrong... |
|
I suspect that it is fixed in the next release, which hasn't happend yet.
 
| |
|
| suspect that it is fixed in the next release, which hasn't happend yet. |
|
It should be in the metaverse - the game management is at SDs server....
Alex
| |
|
I wonder if the former 1/2/3 medals will get fixed now...
Alex
| |
|
 | I wonder if the former 1/2/3 medals will get fixed now... |
|
Tag I am it. 
[Message Edited]
| |
|
|
|
Oh no you're not....
Alex
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
