I've very rarely found, even in very short 1v1 games, the races to be even remotely similar. yes their ships are the same, but beyond that there isnt a thing to both their names.

thats my 2c

i think similarity is good, yes it takes away creativity but it makes the game so much easier to play. u can't have anti air and nothing for it to shoot down. u can't have tanks vs. infantry it doesn't work

In multiplayer sins , good players magnify small differences between races to achieve maximum gain thus we are indeed seeing differences between the races as schod states many times. Gameplay Diversity check box - ticked.

However the diversity in method is rather dubious. Important in a 4x game imo to see a difference in how races get things done.

How do you get to that conclusion ? Granted, there are certain roles that need to be filled to some degree, but why do all races use the same methods to fill those roles ?!
Hell, currently there isn't even a cosmetic difference like TEC using autocannons on their light frigs and Vasari using lasers. Or how about one race using missiles against fighters and bombers instead of flak ?


Don't need to think long and hard, you are wrong. zergling = zealot is a bit like saying cobalt = zodiak, no it's worse. Both are melee units that are available early in the game and both can get a speed upgrade - that are the similarities. But then they differ:
First the entire unit production is different. Zerglings get morphed from a limited amount of larvae, which makes the zerg choose between getting drones or zerglings early in the game, while the toss can make probes and zealots at the same time. Then the zerglings can get their speed upgrade very early which gives them a huge mobility advantage which is great for punishing a careless player. Then the zergling's role shifts. Against terran it often is used as the damage dealer, closing the distance to marines and tanks while the terrans are trying to kill any aproaching lurkers. Against Protoss the zerglings take the damage and block the protoss zealots and archons stopping attempts to surround hydralisks and lurkers. The zealot at this time is often the "main combat unit" for the toss, where other units are just support, but later in the game the zealot becomes more of a meatshield, that's just trying to keep archons, dragoons, reavers and templars alive, while the zerglings with their attack-speed upgrade have suddenly turned into incredible damage-dealers again, which now suffer from their low hitpoints, because a lot of the protoss units do area of effect damage.
The firebat in no way compares to zerglings and zealots, it is in fact a direct counter to both of these units - and pretty much useless against anything else except workers.

scouts, wraiths and mutalisks also are immensely different. Or why are mutalisks used in maybe 80% of all zerg games and scouts in 1% of protoss games at best ? Wraiths cloak. Wraiths are also crappy against ground units but good against air, Mutalisks do the same damage against both.

I could go on and on and on and on and those unit differences are just touching the surface. In Sins it's more like the oh so diverse races in Age of Empires. Yes, the races differ, but they don't differ enough and the races are certainly not diverse or unique.

The idea of the game is great, the engine seems to be very solid and it is fun so far, but the gameplay is... incomplete and probably won't keep many people playing for more than a few weeks. With all that stuff that is supposedly still missing from the game (hmmh, some other company calls a game with 1 race missing pre-alpha, not beta 4 :/) the release version will probably be the true final beta. =/

Thank you for understanding my point.

Yes, the units are (far!) from identical, but they fill the exact same ***roles***.



I may be wrong here, but last I checked the real limitation (early game at least) was that you couldn't get the resources together quick enough. Not that the limited number of larvae kept you from using your resources.



How do you mean they "use the same methods to fill those roles?" If your argueing for purely cosmetic differences your making a (bad) joke. If you have something more substantial and relevent, lets hear it!

Edit: And I came to the conclusion that all sides need to have the roles filled because otherwise they'd loose. Slowly or quickly, they'd loose. Yes, you can counter instead... but space brings a change in dynamic. You can't use terrain to counter an enemy "role" that you don't have, because there isn't much. And (thought experiment...) while one side might not have carriers, flak frigates aren't enough. Eventually, the advantage the enemy has will tell, so you must reproduce carriers. Ergo, both sides end up filling all the same roles, just not in the same manner.

Quoted for Truth.

This game is more solid in Beta 4 than any game that I've played at release in a very long time.

(Okay, that's not fair. I also played GalCiv at release and that game was also very solid on release day.)

Kudos to the dev team for a job well done!

I have been in about 4 or 5 betas and seen 2 or 3 others. Blizzard's beta tests always seem to be perfect and for others they generally had far more bugs than Sins in it's current state, but also had more features. Last PC games I've bought on release: Portal, Episode 2, Episode 1, HL2 (all great) and Civ 4 (had some problems IIRC). Yes, that means I generally don't buy and play crappy games anymore. Only other games that I might get in the near future are Crysis and 1 or 2 Wii games. I'm not saying the devs aren't doing everything they can to make the game as good as possible and I'm not saying they aren't doing well. I just agree that the races aren't diverse enough and I don't understand holding back so many features for the release if those features can drastically alter the gameplay, which we are supposed to test.


Melee fighter is not a role. make the zergling ranged and change it's stats slightly and balance will hardly be affected even if the zerg suddenly don't have a early game melee unit anymore. Also, read my post again if you have to: I said the races differ, but they don't differ enough.


What would that exact same role that the zergling and the zealot fill be then ?


Optimally you should always have 1 larva ready for each 50 minerals you get. Constantly building zerglings from 1 hatchery is possible with as low as 4 drones (maybe even 3?),
so you generally need 1 or 2 new hatcheries pretty soon. Resources vs Larvae is pretty much a constant balancing act. But, no matter the reason, the zerg has to carefully balance his drone vs zergling production, while the toss can just make probes and zealots at the same time if he wants to, without risking either getting killed or falling behind in economy. This is a very early gameplay difference between the two races, creating differing strategies immediatly, which i miss in Sins.


Purely cosmetic differences would be better than no differences. Vasari having missile bays is better than Vasari having Gauss cannons, even if they function exactly the same. Having the missile bays with a longer range and more damage, balanced by a lower rate of fire and less hitpoints would be more varied. But currently I have the feeling that even changes like this aren't likely to get in for release (time constraints / final design decisions ?) or a later patch (big changes for 'just a patch'), so why even think up more specific stuff like this ?


Why would they lose(! sorry ) ? is there no other way to counter a disadvantage than exactly replicating what the other side is doing ? Why aren't flak frigates enough to counter carriers ? why does flak have to be on a frigate ? What is the *role* of the carrier ? Isn't that role somewhat irrelevant, as the role of the carrier could drastically change if the figthers and bombers change ? Now why are fighters and bombers so interesting ? because most other ships have _no_ way to hit them, because if the opponent is careless they can hit defense structures and capitals without taking any damage and because losing strike craft doesn't hurt - you can always keep your carriers at the edge of the gravwell and just retreat. Now LRMs already present you with a choice, as they also can kill turrets without getting shot at and flaks offer a choice because their role also overlaps with fighters. But couldn't the Vasari use something different from long-range missiles or bombers entirely ? A unit or ability which allows their light frigates or other ships to get close to any cannons and deal damage before they get shot to pieces ? An ability that can disable cannons for some time ? I don't even mean that those are particularly good examples, but why would different species come up with *exactly* the same solutions to the same problems. I mean... even we can't agree on anything

too many sarcastic asses who cannot prove their point (because its terrible!)

Don't worry Fleisch...there are many of us out here who have posted much the same as you and Red Priest mentioned. (Search for my posts earlier..good stuff )

In each case the people who post are attacked by an identical group who seem to believe that a discussion consists only of rote repetition and that anyone attempting to point out weaknesses in the game is somehow attempting to directly attack their baby.

I really hope that this game is great, hell, I bought it beforehand on that hope. The noise level on this forum created by a group of fanboys is extremely high and pretty much precludes an honest discussion.

The Master of Orion 3 forums were much the same...

...huh? Have you even participated in a Bliz beta?.

Hell... the WC3 beta was downright hilarious. You could crash everyone in a chatroom by just sending a message to it. D2 was a mess even at release, nevermind the Beta...

*sigh*
ron, antagonistic minorities like Caael will always exist, you just gotta do your best to ignore them.

I've said repeatedly that this is a valid point from certain qualified standpoints. but as of yet every single complaint has been far too overgeneralized.

Now, having this discussion would be lovely if we were slightly more *specific* about what is truly wrong (telling me a big blanket "they're carbon copies" tale will get me to quickly ignore you, I'm one of the more experienced players here and I know thats not true.). Now, if we're lucky enough to talk like rational people instead of hillbillies on anything inhaled from a bong, then maybe we can get somewhere.

Isn't hypocracy grand?!

Firstly,How the heck is Caael antagonistic here? He is actually much less antogonistic than most of the people posting here.

Secondly, just saying a point is irrational is no argument against it. If you want to say those with opposing views are a bunch of ignorant hillbillies, then you truly have given up on discussion. For person S to attribute a position or a line of purported reasoning as "Rational" implicitly entails person S accepting the position or line of reasoning as one that S either accepts or is willing to consider as a viable candidate for accepting (amongst other things). Just saying a position or argument is 'irrational' says nothing. If you cry about people not giving "rational" arguments and then don't go on to actually engage in the opposing view by charitably interpretting it (in terms that your opponent would accept), then you contribute nothing to the discussion. There have been (admittedly very rough) arguments presented here by myself and various others. It seems to me that they have not been characterized charitably and therefore have not been adequately addressed. Where is this supposed big blanket "they're carbon copies" statement (or even something closely similar for purposes of the argument)? I haven't said anything of the sort, and I don't think Fleisch has either. I have been very careful to qualify my criticisms to not be the absurd claim you so uncharitably (and unethically) attribute the position as being. I even point out that depending upon how broadly or narrowly we specify "function" of a ship type every unit in every RTS game is the same or entirely different. In this case however the fact is the there is a cross-racial specification of ship function already built into SINS as it stands. Just look at where the ship types are located in:
-the build menu order
-the tech tree level
-and in the classification of ships types in the end game summary!!

Are you actually denying that there are ship classes that cross races? This would absurd to do. It is roughly this level of function that I am complaining about. The game would be much more interesting if there were no simple 1-to-1 correspondence between the ship types between races. This is NOT the stupid claim that all the ships are the same such that its makes no difference how you play. Examples have already been given for how this can be done and are seen in so many RTS games. It takes a serious lack of imagination to not see that the races could be given a greater variety than they already have. Have you even bothered trying to understand why I mentioned games like Homeworld Cataclysm or do you honestly not see a difference between the diversity in factions in SINS in contrast with Cataclysm?

Perhaps again the quick critics of these arguments are missing another point:

-The claim is NOT that whichever race you pick makes absolutely no difference to how you play.

-Rather the claim is that picking one race over another should make an even greater difference to how you play than it presently does in the game. This is a criticism about something missing from the game (where this something could be the broadening of a certain dimension of the game)


-This cannot be lamely responded to by saying "it already does make a big difference". If you like the lack of difference amongst factions in age of empires then you will be fine with the lack of difference here and it is perfectly fine to express that you are really quite content with how things presently are. However, don't get so hostile to those persons expressing alternative preferences. And just because you are more vocal does not mean you are right (that would be "hillbilly" reasoning).

Try understanding the opposing position before lamely criticizing it as something from a hillbilly. Isn't hypocracy grand?!

The two sides play nothing alike from the very start. TEC don't need to pump out fleet upgrades right off, Vasari do. Tec have shield regeneration capabilities, Vasari don't. Vasari have mobility upgrades and powerful disabling and planetary bombardment weaponry, TEC don't. Yes, they both have a basic frigate, a missile frigate(sort of, we're being loose here, a look at the damage types reveals that torpedo frigates are designed for nuking capital ships in particular and vastly more effective at it than missile frigates), a flak frigate, a siege frigate, a carrier, a heavy cruiser, and two supports. The supports aren't anything alike, but they both have two supports.

TEC is a production powerhouse, pumping out units in large numbers with ease, vastly greater ease than Vasari. This is true at the start by virtue of skirmishers being eight fleet points instead of five and being a hell of a lot more expensive, and it is true at the end by virtue of TEC having 8 more logistic points on every planet and a percentage of all expenditures from the opposing sides. The vasari are a side based around mobility. They have abilities to take it away from the enemy, and abilities to improve their own. This is true from the start when they can use marauders to boost their own speeds or evacuators to slow the enemy, and it is most definitely true at the end when they have phase gates connecting every planet and can create temporary points deep in enemy space with an inhibitor immune, fast moving capital ship and mass reducing armor upgrades.

Instead of pointing to more differences in other games, consider what really existed. Starcraft took eight years to balance reasonably close, and people still bitch about unbeatable strategies. Fanboy syndrome is hardly a new creation for Sins, instead of the glorious bullshit Starcraft ideal, I see a terribly clunky interface, three unique sides they ripped off from games workshop with barely any modification, and oodles of patches over several years before it resembled the perfect game balance certain individuals had been claiming was there from the start. That it got those oodles of patches over eight years is the high point of Blizzard. They might not be able to get it right to start with or come up with their own ideas, but they at least keep at it unlike most of the gaming industry.

The infection mechanism in Cataclysm is a good one too, it fucking sucks balance wise. It's horrific in comparison to the original, better than most strategy games, but then most of them suck monkey nuts. While still a very nice game, outside of the method of tech aquisition, the differences in sides are less than Vasari and TEC before and after upgrades. They both gather resources the same way, and they both have the same basic roles filled by near identical ships. They do not have radically different abilities and capital ships. Homeworld, which was even more similar in sides, was far better balanced.

Whether they are different or not isn't opinion, isn't antagonistic, and isn't arguable. How much different they are is, that every side has near identical frigates and cruisers in the same positions in the research tree is somewhat disgruntling, but then it's not much different from having medium tanks and heavy tanks in CnC, skirmishers floor cobalts. That's the end of the similarity on the combat side.