It bears repeating, however, that this is a diminution of the game, not an improvement. The "cage match" mentality, and the attitude that comes with it, simply throws away a lot of features that provide an additional layer of complexity and enjoyment to the vast majority of players (going by total title sales vs. number of "cage match" advocates).
True. In 5v5 locked ppl games there's not much room for envoys. However in single player and other multiplayer games they can be quite useful, especially where there's a number of powerful AI that humans try to partner up with quickly to take down other humans. Otherwise victory through "diplomacy" just doesn't happen (unless you play with diplomacy victory condition, which I haven't seen the MP community play).
You could make that argument with the faster settings, but given how long games of Sins can take that is a necessity in multiplayer, no one necessarily wants that by choice. No one would ever play games if they were going to take 5 hours each.
However, arguing that it's just the style of play that prevents envoys doesn't seem to be a valid criticism to me. Playing "cage match" games are the only way to prove which strategies are truly viable and those that aren't. If a strategy is not worth executing under pressure, then it's probably not worth executing at all. Sure you might be able to "get away" with it against the AI, but you probably could have won much faster had you used a strategy that does hold up when you're fighting for your life.
Now it is true that the long term investment nature of envoys means that in many multiplayer situations they are in effect unaffordable because you have to commit all your resources to staying alive. However, that only applies to a player on the front line who is losing. The player that is winning has more scope for investment, and he could choose to send envoys to the economic players for the long term benefits they offer. However, it is still never done because quite simply there are better investments that don't require you to tie up fleet supply in useless ships (until you max out the tech tree it's quicker to just invest in that, and you rarely do that in multiplayer).
There is also the fact that envoys do take a bit of micromanagement, and fleet battles against humans require all the time you can spare to direct them. Thus really the eco players are the ones that should be using envoys in MP games, as they have the time and money available to get access to them, and they'll probably benefit the most in the end. And before pacts required both factions to maintain relationships, this is roughly what happened, as pacts where a useful way for economy players to help both themselves and their best frontline players. But now that both players need to maintain relations, there's no one for the eco players to send envoys to, except the rare double eco setup, so eco players focus on feed and titans instead.
Now it's certainly fine to argue it's not fun to play in this kind of set up. But if we're trying to debate whether pacts are really viable, I have to say you need to use the multiplayer frame of mind to judge it with.
