Argh... i hate it when developers do that.

Please, pretty please, stop underestimating your customers intelligence.

Do you honestly think that by dumbing down the game you can get attention from, for example, the fps crowd? Not a chance. The target group for a game like sins is similar to the audience of GalCiv and not really the audience of your typical rts game. You'll never catch the casual gamers with this game anyway.

One, you clearly lack the advertising power necessary for that, to even reach the casual gamer.

Secondly, you lack the graphics. For me the graphics looks nice and adequate, for your normal graphic fetishist it looks outdated.

Third, you lack the big name, which goes together with one. At this stage, who knows from this game? I would wager the only ones who are, are those who are interested in sci-fi in general,4x strategy games and heard from it from mouth-to-mouth propaganda (respectively its internet equivalent).

Honestly, what kind of people bought, GalCiv2 and enjoyed playing it? Certainly not those with a short attention span, which is widespread with casual gamers. For example, in Europe, especially in Germany, GalCiv2 got horrible reviews from totally incompetent game magazines. Around 65-75% Score. So who bought it there? The nerds, the geeks, the space game enthusiasts, the hardcore gamers if you want to say it. I dunno the numbers of games sold in Europe, but think they didn't just sold it to me.


Anyway, what I want to say is, that today there is a market, albeit a niche market, for complex games. Today with the internet, there is to possibility to reach enough people to brake even, even when your game isn't understandable and controllable in the first five seconds. For this there are tutorials, and tutorials can even be long ones, if necessary.

But okey, of course it's also possible that I am not in your target audience. I have to confess I enjoy Hearts of Iron over Command & Conquer in the long run. I rather play Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander instead of Age of Empires. I prefer Alpha Centauri over Civilization VI. I like X³ and are not that fond of Freelancer.

So I am a geek in this respect, a niche gamer. But I wonder if this niche isn't larger then you would think?

/--END OF RANT

Not only will GC2 fans like this, but Homeworld, and Haegemonia fans i think will like this game as well. That is a pretty big group of people i would think.

It's not about underestimating customer's intelligence, it's about what will sell in the mainstream market. There's a reason why simple games like Deer Hunter sell 6 million units while those like Company of Heroes sell only 120,000 - one is approachable to the average joe and the other isn't.

The FPS crowd consists of hardcore gamers. This is about not limiting the potential market of sales. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that casual players aren't in the mix and use the FPS gamer segment. This group probably doesn't play many strategy games, so how tolerant do you think they'll be to a higher learning curve. The answer is most won't be.  Industry market research and real sales figures bear this out time and time again. It's not like we just pull this stuff out of a hat.

The Sins ad campaign isn't even set to start until later this year and most of it will hit next year when it will actually do some good. Our experience has shown that advertising before release is largely wasted money.

What are you comparing it to?  There haven't been many sci-fi space-based RTS's of late and it's hardly fair to compare Sins to an FPS. Perhaps you could give detailed feedback so we can look into it?

Just so, which limits the potential market. So what sense does it make to limit it further by adding in complex gameplay features that will limit the "fun factor" to the niche sci-fi strategy gamers from the Homeworld era?

Let me restate my original point: If 3D can be done without making it impossible for joe gamer to still be successful, I'm good with it.

European retail sales were very disappointing. Hopefully the upcoming Gold Edition release will do better.

That's true, the Internet opens up possibilities.  However, break-even means no Sins 2 and possibly no more Ironclad.  We need to aim for profitable.

 

Indeed, I don't know a single person who plays GC2 (that I didn't meet in there)

I completely understand having to comform to market standards. Creating a really complex game which nobody will buy isn't exactly good business strategy




While most of us forum goers are reasonably intelligent (besides schem i mean ) The gamers market in general isn't. Why do you think EA is selling millions of copies of "The Sims, random add-on #14"?

Customers = people...need I say more?

Well, the developers might target the mainstream and get some extra sales. But if they actually want this game to have endurance, it had better be heavily moddable.

Hey Yarlen, speaking of modding, did you have time to check into those two questions about modding I passed by you? It was about the possibility of making a mod where there is a single huge gravity well with entire star systems inside it (thus doing away with phase lanes).

1. Can we mod ships to be able to use Phase Space to travel within a single gravity well?

2. Can we mod Phase Space Inhibitors so they have a adjustable spherical range instead of having a gravity well wide effect?

~3. I also asked if it might be possible to mod in sensor ranges within a gravity well.

Thanks

First I have to apologize. Reading my first post again I realize now that it looks a bit aggressive. Perhaps i got on a little hyperbole. Since English isn't my first language I sometimes misjudge the tone of my stile of writing.



I agree. Using intelligence as a criterion wasn't very intelligent from me. What I rather meant was the attention span of the user and how much time someone will invest into learning to play a game.



By the by: In my environment fps gamers are casual gamers, since it gives them a quick and fun way to blow steam off. But perhaps I'm understanding the word casual gamer wrong?



You're of course right about advertising when the release is still three quarter of a year to go. What I rather meant was (albeit from a European point of view) that probably nobody will learn from your game, if not either through magazines or through mouth-to-mouth propaganda. At least that was the case with GalCiv2. Wouldn't have heard from it if I haven't had played the first one already.




Of course it's unfair to compare it to an fps. But the people, on those German forums that I frequently visit, do this.

To take an example in the rts segment. On the release of the third Command&Conquer a lot of people were complaining about the "bad" graphics, which weren't to their expectations. For my those graphics were quite good. Haven't seen betters before in other rts games (although I have just played HoI2 and European Universalis 2 in the time before, so I can't really be judging it unprejudiced. )

Of course my knowledge about this is just anecdotal and not from professional view point, so it's just opinion, I guess.

Vandenburg

I gotta agree with your final point there. It seems that the game is already a niche game (space opera ala David Weber), and will really only attract a portion of the RTS crowd as well as a portion of the 4X crowd.

And thats OK! I've personally made it my mission in life to spread the word on GalCiv2. Two of my friends have bought the game on just my (strong) recommendation. Word of mouth is stronger than you guys give it credit.

I say go all out. Full immersive 3D combat, with 3D grids and track points for the spatially intentionally impaired. Make it so you can feel the power and freedom of control of an entire space battle fleet.

But hey, thats just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Paradoxnt - Thanks for the reminder. I'm working on it.

Vandenburg - No problem on the misunderstanding. FPS players are definitely not considered casual gamers, they are considered part of the most hardcore niche of PC players.

GalCiv II's lack of exposure in Europe had more to do with business than anything else.  We expect our new publisher to do a much better job in this regard for both GalCiv II: Gold and Sins.

Well then, honestly, those people have wildly unrealistic expectations that will never be met short of Crysis.

I'm going to take this opportunity to throw this in there:
games like deer hunter are about an addicting, mindless gameplay. these types of games attribute themselves to wide catagories of people, hence the:

but, in contrast, RTS and 4x games only are fun to a smaller, more dedicated group. I bet if you look you will find that games like deer hunter have boom-bust sale cycles where games like HW, C&C, galciv and other 4x/RTS games have continuous, stable sales. how otherwise would these games have dozens of sequels?

anyway the point I'm getting at is; dont mistake sales as a function of simplicity when in fact its more likely a function of public needs. to attribute sale differences to "simplicity" in a game makes little sense to me.

Again, that's not what I'm saying. It's about making the game accessible to the average gamer.

The answer is no to all of the above, at least for now.

Ironclad and Stardock are very confident that the Phase Lane system or a minor variant will be the default in Sins.  However, Ironclad is looking into modding options that will allow players to experiement with their own alternatives. These advanced modding options won't be available until close to or after Sins ships.

but to imply that by simplifying the game is what allows it to be "accessible" is only an indirect way of saying the same thing. otherwise it would make no logical sense.


I believe there is a disconnect in your observations (are you a market analyst? because if you are this would be a good time for me to shut up.). anyway I believe that you are trying to make a game available to the general gamer when, in fact, this game would never be in such a way compatable. It sounds to me like that market strategy will only alienate your largest consumer source; the people who actually like RTSs.

Damn, I hope Ironclad allows us to modify the above mentioned abilities in the final release. Otherwise, a lot of modders are going to be disappointed with the game.

Still, thanks for checking on it for us Yarlen.

How do you define successful?

How does giving players the option of utilizing 3-D space limit joe gamer's ability to be successful?


Take Homeworld for example. You can play the game quite competently without ever holding down the Shift key (shift was for z-axis movement). This is good enough to play the single-player campaign, good enough to play skirmishes against the CPU, and is good enough for online play against most players on most maps. But the shift key is there for people with the desire and skill to use it. And for those people, it adds a world of freedom and possibilities.

All that is necessary (imo) to give Sins the option of 3-D gameplay is to:
1. allow 3-D placement of orbital structures and
2. give players the ability to choose where their fleet decants from phasespace.

To get an idea of what I mean for #2, consider this (very lame) picture:



The yellow circle represents the boundary of a gravity well. Point A is where your ships currently are. Line AB represents the direct path to the gravity well. This is the current implementation in Sins. It is also what Joe Gamer is going to use (it would be the default). But it could be optional to choose more specifically where your ships go. You could tell them to come out of phase space at point C, or D, or somewhere in between. Rotate this in 3-D and you get a cone of possibilities. (I am assuming that they eliminate the ability to jump through gravity wells so you would not be able to get to a point that is past the tangent line from your current location to an edge of the target gravwell, such as point E).

Now, this would change how some other things work too: first of all, it is now much more difficult to defend your planet with stationary weapons (i.e., the gauss cannon) because you have no idea which direction the enemy is going to come from.

The remedy to this is to 1. change the way you build:

Instead of piling gausses at the star lane exits like you do now, you are going to position them close to the planet so that you can shoot at anything that moves into bombardment range (the inner rim of the gravwell is a lot smaller than the outer edge) and you are going to put them near other important orbitals (which is, imho, a more interesting setup anyways).

Another thing that you could do is increase the range of the gauss cannon (and the other races' analogs). This way you get more coverage from a single unit. In conjunction with or instead of this, you could decrease the cost of each gauss to give you greater coverage for the same amount of money... the details of that would be for the balance team to iron out.

You could also make orbitals take up a larger space, meaning they have to be spaced farther apart than they currently do. This is to prevent someone from building a literal wall of stuff to block the paths of ships. By adding 3-D you now have a LOT of extra space to build in so increasing the space that they take up shouldn't be a problem.


I don't think that these simple things would cause Joe Gamer any problems because he never needs to use them (heck, he might not even realize that they exist) but will make this game much more enjoyable for the more hardcore gamers.

Now, a Joe Gamer who comes up against a hardcore gamer who is utilizing the 3-D space is likely going to get smashed. But then again, he was probably going to lose to the hardcore gamer anyways. And, with Ironclad Online's matchmaking system, Joe gamer isn't going to come up against hardcore gamers anyways. He is going to come up against other Joe Gamers who are equally oblivious to the 3-D possibilities. As he moves up the ranks, he is more likely to encounter someone using the 3-D space. So, if he wants to continue to move up, he will learn how to use it effectively. On the other hand, if he isn't interested in moving up, he won't. Most Joe Gamers aren't that competitive anyways (otherwise they would be hardcore gamers).




Well, that's my 2 cents.

Wedge, that's my favorite so far.

 

Wedge
That was even understanderable by a Joe gamer

I really like it, and that idea should be put to stone

Just gotta ask are you a school teacher?

I completely agree with Wedge. I'd just like to add that since point A is anywhere on the starting gravity well, it's not a cone but a cylinder of possibilities. With half-sphere-dents on each side.

I had to say it or Schem would.  

This is definitely a hugely great idea.

I have 13 years of experience in the gaming industry and have been in meetings with top level buyers for many of the major retailers in the industry and their publisher counterparts.  I know exactly what sells and what doesn't and why, plus I'm a hardcore gamer. That's on top of quite a few other people here who has just as much experience if not a bit more.  Good enough?    We know what we're doing.

Seriously guys, case closed on this. You're not going to change our minds on it when it comes down to selling 10,000 units versus 400,000 units. One means death and the other doesn't.

Again:  You can use 3D space already in Sins to a limited degree (maybe more). The point we're trying to make is that it should not be required in order for the average gamer to play Sins and be successful at it (if the uber-hardcore player wants to do stuff in 3D go for it - I'm saying it shouldn't be the default). I honestly think we're just taking past each other at this point.

As I see it, if you add even the option of 3D movement and building placement to the game, the AI would have to be able to account for it, counter it, and even manage to do it on its own.  As soon as you have the AI utilising 3D space like that (like in Homeworld), even the average gamer has to learn how to use it.  It's one of those things where if you include the option, everyone will HAVE to use it since the AI will have to handle it as well.

I remember many a Homworld session where I had to try and manipulate my fleet to get it to the same general plane as my enemy, or track down that one lone fighter hiding at the far edge of the map area, no more than a dot, and having to navigate around radiation clouds etc.  Navigation in a full 3d sphere from a fixed view was pretty difficult to do quickly and consistently unless you were targeting something.

Does having 3D movement and being able to enter the grav well at multiple points add to the realism?  Sure, as much as you can look for realism in a game about aliens, space-faring humans, and ships with giant laser beams you can see in space, and explosions you can hear.  But the question you ultimately have to ask is "Will it make the game more FUN for more people than the alternative?"  And no, don't go asking it from a hardcore gamer point of view, hardcore gamers want seem to want systems that make games more difficult and complex, which doesn't necessarily translate to "fun" for the majority of the game buying public.

Does true 3d space add more fun than it potentially takes away in confusion and frustration for users trying to adapt to it?

X3 is an example several have brought up of an excellent game with a lot of complexity and a lot of depth.  I agree, it's a fantastic space sim that does a lot and works very hard to give a lot of options to the player.  It's also a terrible "game"  It's a sandbox that the player gets dumped into with little direction, little framework, little explanation and told to just "go!"  This is a game that makes the hardcore space sim junkie all tingly in that special part of their brain.  But it was completely inaccessible to the average gamer.  Sales-wise, it tanked (have you ever seen the game break into any major sales chart?).  Review-wise, because it was so complex even reviewers couldn't get a handle on it and it was reviewed fairly poorly (73% average).

And to Ninja's comment on asking if Yarlen is a market analyst (with the nice bit about shutting up)...  Are you a market analyst yourself?  Do you have first-hand experience in publishing, distributing, marketing and have several years as a gaming journalist?  When Yarlen says something like "It's been our experience..." it means he has actually been through this before.  Experience trumps conjecture and guessing any day of the week.

I don't think this has to be real complicated or intimidating to Joe Gamer. The interface for it could look just like those pool games that everyone has played at one time or another.



The part in the upper right where you tell it where to hit the que ball could be where you exit phasespace. Default would be dead center, just like in the pool games. And most people play those games without ever changing that (I know I never mess with it). Only the real crazy people do. Which is exactly what would happen in Sins: Joe gamer will never touch it, but the hardcore gamers would.

As for the confusion of 3-D navigation, it seems that the AI in Sins is already perfectly competent at moving in 3-D - it just usually has no reason to at this point for reasons that have already been stated. And, unlike in Homeworld, the play area in Sins is rather small - easily viewable on the screen without being reduced to some dot out in the middle of nowhere. A hostile target in 3-D space is just a right-click away. That shouldn't cause even a Joe Gamer any consternation. Heck, he could even let the AI make it's own way up there when it's good and ready to attack that target.


Your call, of course, but I just fail to see where it would be a game breaker for Joe Gamer and I DO see where not having it could be a game breaker for hardcore gamer.

Zoomba & Varlen

I gotta say, it is amazingly disappointing to be hearing this from you guys. Its disappointing because your basically creating yet another 2D rts putting it in space, and injecting it with just enough 4x to make it somewhat interesting. Its disappointing, because according to your post, you are more interested in shipping units, rather than creating a quality product. And lastly its hugely disappointing because this game has such potential.

Its not often you get a game developer that actually wants to take on this genre, so when gems like this come along, every gamer thats been reading his/her sci-fi wants to get their hands on it. You mention HW Zoomba, and rightly so, because thats the current benchmark for games of this type. Look how many units that game sold. And SINS has the potential to be even better.

Instead of flat out stating that the controls for 3D orientation are too complicated, try thinking of a way to make it workable, or even intuitive. I'm a huge fan of stardock and I think you guys could come up with something if you really tried.

I don't mind the core game being dumbed down for the average gamer in order to increase sales. I want Ironclad to do well. I just wish they were putting a bit more time into the games modding capabilities/potential so even us core space strategy gamers could be satisfied.

The two following issues concern me quite a bit.

1. Right now, the 3D capabilities of the game are nearly pointless. Granted, I'd rather the game have little use for 3D movement than NO 3D movement at all. But allowing us to build in the Z axis would be a big help. Also, it would be nice if we could choose the X/Y/Z location our ships emerge from Phase Space (of course, along the facing edge of the target gravity well only)

2. A lot of modders will want to create and use open connection maps. I mentioned one way to get around this a few posts earlier, but Yarlen indicates it is unlikely to happen. Phase Lanes really need to be something that can be modded to satisfy many of us.

well it works for me. but I will always remain the skeptic.

I understand.

then I have one request; make it far more intuitive.
like in homeworld, holding down the click button and raising/lowering it would affect the z axis.
currently the tilda (~) button method is finicky and very unintuitive, its hard even to tell where I'm telling my ships to go (is it 500 feet up... or 7000 feet ahead... I cant see dammit!)
if you can do that I'll be a mite bit happier, and that might make your sales up to 400,001 units (well I'm already trapped, preorder and all... but anyway)

I'm happy with that idea.

is it really that complex? I dont know if I should be flattered...

I'm the last to call myself experienced. but I wont deny that I have a talent for the theoretics. market analysis is nothing if not data, analysis and theoretics.

the thing about companies; usually you have one person doing one job, so I dont exactly expect a techy to have experience in market analysis or a manager in computing. I'm sure you understand.

I'm a fan of homeworld's system to the end. i dont see how it could be simpler (lets see... pre-click is on the plane of my ship, peri-click is for the verticle axis. EASY!)

which is the key issue here. Ironclad is a little itty-bitty baby of a company as of present. as nice as it would be to have this game be depthful, if its not pragmatic it could mean the end of better things to come.

as some people have mentioned, homeworld, especially part 2, made it fairly easy to use the third dimension in movement, so I cannot really second this being something too complicated for casual gamers. and those titles didn't sell too badly now, did they?

Looks like its back to the grind again.

I hate this place...