QFT

sadly

Huh?

Ah, you mean the Hoshiko's special abilities and the Dunov shield restore, for a moment I've thought you talked about no shield regeneration at all for the Vasari. (Because that would have been a pretty large difference. )



Sorry, that's a bit silly. Starcraft wasn't badly balanced after the first few patches, it just wasn't balanced perfectly (and no game will ever be).

And I don't get your hate for Starcraft. It had the usual Blizzard interface (they even reused it for WC3) and it works quite well, though it's nothing revolutionary.

Starcraft was the first real time strategy game with really different races, not just copies of each other.



People always whine about unbeatable strategies in all RTS. Mostly after they've lost to someone, but not nescessary because the strategy used against them was uber.



But the argument isn't about if they're different or not. The argument is about whether they are different enough.

And it's not only the combat part. We also have the empire part which is pretty much the same for both sides.

-----------------



Some few individuals said that. Constructing out of that that everyone insisted on that is a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

----------------



Well, that's perhaps one part where some (at least I do ) argue that the races aren't different enough. Everyone trades, everyone uses culture, etc. And all primary roles of frigates are the same. It's a design decision of course that is understandable. Doesn't mean that I can't want to have an other design philosophy.

----------------

But anyway, discussion about that topic isn't very fruitful in the end, since nothing much will get changed until release (we got featurelock quite some time ago).

Yes, differences exist and the two races don't play the same. But the basic ships and strategies are still very similar. Yes, capitalships aren't the same. BUT: They still all cost the same and there is still 1 battleship, 1 carrier, 1 support, 1 colonizer and 1 planet bomber for both races. From my limited experience both races need roughly the same amount of resources, the same amount of planets and the same amount of fleetpoints to compete with the other race.


Uhm, the last balance patch was either 1.08 or 1.09 and those came out in late 2001 and early 2002 IIRC, since then it was all fixing bugs, adding features, adding bugs and fixing the newly added bugs .

people are stupid. Professional gamers play all 3 races, they depend on winning to keep their jobs and their incomes, I'm certain most of them would immediatly pick the strongest race if there was one. And none of the people claiming there was an unbeatable strategy can ever back this up.


Interface: 10 years old - enough said.
Ripped off from Games Workshop: Yes, nobody else ever does that. And I'm sure GW wasn't inspired somehow from Starship Trooper, Ender's Game, Alien and other books and movies either but invented it all from scratch ?
Patches: Yes, certainly what keeps their games alive so long.


even if you compare resource and fleetpoint investment and not plain numbers ?
And then, is there are larger strategic difference between cobalts and skirmishers ?

Sorry, the post is a bit rushed, but I wanted to finish it before leaving the computer.

That would be called "balance"... even in the all-hallowed Starcraft you had to have an equivalent resource base to compete, and an equivalent number of supply/power/control points to fight on an even basis.



Pssst, look at the ice / volcanic / terran / desert planet upgrades... TEC get 2 sets of terran, 1 of ice and 1 of desert, while Vasari get 1 terran, and 2 volcanic... I think 1 ice as well.

Admittedly, I do not know Caael and I was only addressing his specific post.





In many ways I would agree that similar sorts of 1-to-1 correspondences can be found in starcraft, but the differences are even greater. While it is unfortunate that each race has artillery units, they seem to be much more different than the units in SINS. How much more difference? how do you want to individuate and quanitify differences? that would be a stupid question that cannot be answered.

There is however an important sense in which no matter how different the units in a game are we can say that they are just the same. you just have to construe sameness very abstractly. Furthermore, I have already stated myself that the units in SINS are different between different races. I also said that they are not different enough. Consider the proposals mentioned above which the critics seem to ignore.

Are you actually saying that you can think of no way by which one could make the game more interesting by, say having one race combinging LRM and anti-fighter into one and the same cruiser (and getting rid of the frigates that would do these tasks on their own). Or perhaps by having a EMP traps that could disable enemy units so that they can be captured. I am not a creative genious here, but wouldn't these sorts of difference make a much bigger difference and therefore give the game new dimensions of tactical play?

Here I would like to point out where I think the real crux of the debate might hang (once people actuallg get past saying "They are too different!" -to which everyone already agrees). The issue mught be this: Is balancing feasible with greater diversity in ships types between races? I think that the more diversity you add the more difficult balancing will be. A good game will be roughly balanced and have a lot of diversity. The above author kindly recognized my point about the infection weapon in Cataclysm, but I have not idea why they talk about the original homeworld. I wasn't even talking about it. If its units lack diversity then too bad for it. In Cataclysm this cannot be said. What corresponds to sentinels, leeches, cruise missiles, ion array frigates? Yes, if you broaden "sameness" enough everything is the same as everything else, but that is a trivial and useless point.

I think that people have confused illustrations of the point being argued for the argument itself. The argument (or at least the expression of preference) is that there should be greater diversity than there already is amongst ships types such that no clear 1-to-1 functional correspondence can be made (see earlier post on this point). This can be made independently of appealing to other games. We point to other games to highlight the sorts of things that we would have liked to be in SINS. Fact is that there are a lot of people who see some sort of diversity in games like cataclysm, C&C generals, (and I guess starcraft) that they do not find in SINS. Both sides in this deabte talking about it in terms of "sameness" and "diversity" is unfortunately very sloppy, but perhaps unavoidable without nicely rigorized criteria of the relevant sort of sameness and diversity which I don't care to develop here.

You complaint isn't that the amount needed doesn't vary, its that the proportions needed don't? Say so next time

currently the races are heavily diversified, the thing is that the scope of the game smooths out the differences. yes ideally the differences could be accentuated, but given the scope and scale of the game its not as simple as making some units more expensive and others cheaper.

Caael there were another 2 posts exactly like that one, although longer.

OMG!!! A SPACE GAME HAS SHIPS ON BOTH SIDES! THEY'RE THE SAME!!!!! The frigates being similar goes without saying, half the cruisers being similar goes without saying, claiming the capital ships are similar requires detaching oneself from reality to post such bullshit without slitting ones wrists in atonement.

Melodrama is comedic at best. Stop overstating the similarities and glossing over the differences and maybe it would be such a suckfest every time someone posts about it.

I to am dissapointed with the similarity btw the races.

best point so far

I quote from a previous post

To have two races that have barely met , to have the same way of trading , to have the same way of colonising , have the same way of producing culture , have the same way of making ships , does not help the immersion factor.

i believe its says everything

edit : although i'll wait for the final release before making a judgement

Love the graphics tho - well done Iron Clad

When I started this post I had no idea what a touchy subject this has become. My sentiment is similar to Stu1005's



What saddens me most is the vast amount of intellectual dishonesty that occurs in these debates (I don't mean from Stu1005). Most people do not even attempt to try to establish where there is agreement from where there is disagreement and instead just spout names at the opposing view which they don't even care to charitably characterize. Just look at how many times in this post people say "Nope the teams really are different in this way or that and you have to play the teams differently". Why do you bother? Everyone already agrees on that point. If there is to be genuine discussion we need to establish where the real disagreement lies.
I have tries to point out that unqualified uses of "sameness" or "difference" are useless. Whenever one of use wants to talk about how the ships are the same or different we need to better articulate sameness in some respect and difference in some respect. There is a sense in which every unit in the game is entirely different and there is a sense in which every unit in the game is entirely the same. Take for example the claim:



This too is just useless for discussion purposes. Without trying to specify the sort of sameness and difference it is completely empty and only reinforces this idea that we can talk about sameness and difference independently of any specification. Do you mean same tactical role in regards to the race it belongs to (which can be further specified), the same tactical role against a differing race (which can be further specified), the same images, same means of production, same role with regards to the tech tree, having names that begin with letters near each other in the alphabet?

As a start I have tried to characterize what sense of sameness I am disappointed in above, but most critics seem to miss the point entirely. Roughly, a notion of tactical role sameness can be found extremely clearly amongst the ship types. For each race there are ships satisying this tactical role. You can even give a clear 1-to-1 mapping between the ships. Does anybody deny this? I don't think so. That this mapping can be made so simply is what bothers so many of us. I and many others are not saying there are no difference between the different races' ships that fill the tactical role!! That there is such a clear mapping makes the game less interesting.

If you want to say there REALLY ARE differences between the races' ships then:
-state what sort of difference you are talking about.
-Consider whether the sort of difference you are making a point about is really quite trivial such that anyone you are discussing with would already agree.
-If you think they would obviously agree then don't bother saying it.
-Take another look at what you think the opposing position is.
-Try to speak clearly.

not to mention that all those things are universal constants, I doubt highly advanced civilizations would use inefficient trading, culture and colonizing methods.


although, I can admit that *maybe* the vasari should have little low orbit command stations whizzing around the planets, rather than people that drop directly to the surface (this does explicitely go against the lore)

archpsi dont make this another lore fest, we've already established that anyone who dissagrees with the godly devs is wrong.

but to just explain why you're wrong: the vasari would have left the planets ages ago if they could, however they cannot easily just jump through TEC space: they need to fight their way through, so in order to do that simply stripmining the planets is wholly insufficient, they need resources, labor, and materiel in order to keep their fleets up and going.

LOL!