What is this community's opinion of competitive multiplayer?

Personally, I can't wait to play Sins multiplayer competitive - for trying my skills against others, nuking their planets, bringing in the perfect surprise counter fleet, making fake attacks and attacking elsehwere.I want to try a lot of the new human vs human interactions in sins besides combat (like bounty) so that will be a nice change especially from my usual ffa warcraft 3 days. (Which shows i'm definatly not a 'hands off' kind of player)

I'm not in the beta (no cash yet) but i've seen my friend's singel player and i've been following the forums for a long time. It seems to have a great combination of ship combat (micro type stuff) and higher level strategy type options (which is something i don't see much of in competitive games). It's also seems to be the only contender for a decent multiplayer competitive space game now tha the homeworld communities are pretty much dead. I also like that stardock and ironclad are so involved with the community and they listen to everyone which should make for helping with balancing multiplayer a lot.

The only problem i see is that games seem to take a fairly long time, but i know there are plans to have different modes for multiplayer so they'd go much faster. we'll have to wait and see when the first multiplayer beta comes around though I think that one is just for the server testing.

Thanks for posing this question AgmLauncher. I'm curious myself how many people are interested in competitive multiplayer with Sins (assume we have modes where games play much faster). This is will help us decide where to direct our multiplayer focus with Sins and Ironclad Online. Let's get this discussion rolling!

Well, I enjoy playing the occasional ranked game of SupCom... wouldn't mind the same thing for this game. My only real complain with SupCom was the way the early game overwhelmed the late game unless one side decided to prolong the suffering of the other, or the sides were (almost) evenly matched.

I can't wait for team play myself, and clans! YES!

I meant this as an edit, but also I'm looking forward to the opportunity to learn that would provide me -- SupCom competition helped me learn how to not just sit in my base and tech up with a turtle strategy. I'm hoping that this game will help me learn how to split up my forces and have more than one fleet at a time (rather than mass everyone together).

Personally, while I have nothing against competitive MP, I can pretty much guarantee that the overwhelming majority of my MP games will be co-op vs computers, possibly big, long games. My brother and I love to play games together, so that's just the way these things tend to end up.

I think there is room in Sins for fast paced competative 1v1. I would like the 1v1 to actually be on set maps , so that the "hardcore" can go about honing their abilities to a specific map. Ofcourse , theres the whole issue of "you need to adapt" for random maps , but in competative play ..people need name specific maps that they can say "im good at" , or "im crap at" or "i need practice at" etc

I envisage 1v1 as less then 10 planets lasting no more then 30 mins. 1 pirate per asteroid , 2 pirates per planet. Limited or no maurauders.

Here are some map examples of what would be really cool 1v1 competative.


Shot at 2007-07-26

Very nice P5!!! You may very well see those maps in beta 3 Let's get some more thoughts on how quick, competitive maps could play out (size, planet types, units, layouts for different numbers of players/teams) as well as other things that would help Sins in this type of multiplayer. (Hmm, perhaps I should start another thread).

I play to have a good time, and im not that competitive as many others, tho i do like to win, but i also dont mind lossing if it was a good game

In supcom i played more custom games then ranked games, because if you screwed up within the first 1-2min of a ranked game, you were done for.
I didnt like the idea that almost everyone had to build the same way to be any good at it.
When i started to play more ranked in supcom was when they started to make the tournaments, we were to help test it (the were ranked), and it kinda forced us to wait for the dev to set up the game, and by that we started talking to each other and laughing when stuff broke down.

I think sins will give me more of a joy to play ranked (this is just a guess), as i see it, the game has so many options already that it will allow for many options of playing styles.
Also the community on the forums are a bunch of nice ppl haha

To me its not just about tactics or who controls the game best, its about how fun and how enjoyable it is with my fellow players, and that is why i think sins multiplayer will be good

-Multi

I for one am all for the option for long drawn out competitive multiplayer games(+10 players?)over large maps. I would love to see a save feature much like that in the Civilization games, allowing players to save a session and pick it up at a later date.

Already done fandango

Thats great to hear Blair.

As you asked for further thoughts, what do people think about some type of 'campaign' system that moves slightly beyond a 'ladder' system?

Just to expand a little on what I mean by a 'campaign'; most RTS games tend to rely on players' initiative when it comes to campaigns, with players designing and producing larger macro maps made up of many of the playing boards available in-game.

Although it is perhaps a little late in day to implement any type of campaign system, perhaps through an expansion or patch such a system could be implemented, say a galaxy campaign map, and intergrated with the lower level game boards along a number of lines. My thinking here is that with such an extended multiplayer system, the longevity of peoples interest in the game would increase and enable a more solid online gaming community and clan/guild structures to form.

I suppose EVE would be an example, though I think such a system for Sins would have to stop short of a persistent universe and favor save games and a kinda 'turn based system' for the higher order campaign maps.

Tis just an idea, let me know what you all think.

A thought... will there be victory conditions that we could set for multiplayer?

For example,

- points system (e.g. gain points through killing, teching, taking over planets, building X number of ships). Victories could then be determined by the first team to get X number of points or victory could go to the team with the most number of points after a specific time such as 1 hour.

- first team to destroy a specific planet equidistant from all teams

- first team to find specific artifact(s)

- first team to obtain a certain amount of bounty

- first team to level a cap ship to maximum

- culturally dominate the map (e.g. 75% of galaxy)

- militarily dominate the map

- alliance victory

etc...

This would make games quicker and more interesting and could allow for specific types of competitive matches

Also, what might also be neat would be to allow the host to restrict certain research technologies, limit the number of cap ships that can be built, allow only X number of ships to be built, no building of ships allowed (e.g. start with a squad that you have to keep alive and win the game with), etc...

I have no problem with competitive MP. I dont play online anymore because most people want a wham bam its all over in 2 minutes type of game. Most young online players etiquette leaves much to be desired as well (the relic forums is full of this "etiquette").

"IF" i do decide to seriously play Sins online expect to be playing against me for at least 5-10 hours (free time allowing) on 1 game (on a small map). I view this as a giant game of chess. To take your time, and THINK about your next move. Not spam, and rush. I like long, and drug out fights.

Sure there are other ways to make a "quick" MP game out of sins. Like a timed death match, or assassination type game. In full empire mode i dont see that happening.

EvE online is a bad example to use for sins (tho a damn good game in its own right). Eve is all about single combat as in you, and your ship vs the entire universe. You cant physically control 100's of ships in eve. You can assume the role of fleet commander, and give orders to your clan mates via Ventrillo/team speak, and hope they listen, and carry them out without screwing it up (i do miss my suicide caracal tactics). If you are thinking about the universe map. and how alliances can take over sections of that map, and claim sovereignty. Then that could be possible.

Major Stress, I mention EVE not as an example of combat nor game mechanic by game mechanic comparison. The only comparison I make is with regards to the overall universe map and the way guilds and clans compete to control area and resources.

So yes you are correct in that I am thinking about the universe map....

I think that the EVE style multiplayer would be neat.

However, trying to work this out in my head, I don't know how it would be possible. Would the "campaign" be open to anyone who wants to play online? Would you have to schedule a match for a contested system? Would clans/guilds/alliances be able to control swaths of space and defend it against others?

From what I can see you have a few options with respect to combat in contested systems:

1. Real Time - Enemy fleet arrives, you better have good defenses for the AI to control or you better be on line.

2. Notification based - You get an e-mail (or PM) that Fleet X is approaching a planet, you must propose a time for a battle within 48 hours (or some value) or the AI will control your defenses.

3. Some hybrid system where if both players are online, the engagement begins immediately. Third parties can also take advantage of this and join battles in progress with appropriate warnings to both players that another fleet is inbound (could be reinforcements, could be a third party)

Ultimately there would need to be some details worked out, but I think the idea is really interesting. I think it would add some significant politics to the multiplayer aspect of the game.

Perhaps these universes could be limited in number of players and time - say after a few months the universe implodes (someone is declared the winner) and everyone must sign up to start again.

Just throwing some ideas out there.

I wish I could play multiplayer...but my compy sucks as it is and playing over the net would cause greater lag...for me and my opponent (the game does stop lagging after awhile, its mostly in the beginning).

This does currently happen against the AI. That said the AI is constantly improving. THAT said, I believe that this will still be possible, perhaps not quite those odds, but possible to defeat a larger fleet with "clever things."

I think correct tactics and maneuvers should confer some advantage, but I am afraid this will turn multiplayer into a rabid clickfest. That is my concern.

redo

This technically isn't a gameplay issue, but I would be seriously put off if I had to endure shouts of "UR *&^% LOLZ" and "CHECK MY MAD SKILLZ TEH R DA MOST, pWnEd" like Halo, which really puts me off playing, so, maybe a way of muting a really annoying player? That way I can kick butt in blessed silence.

I think that maybe 60% of the people that play Sins will want to play short games (1.5-3 hours), 30% will want to play medium length games(3-6 hours), and 10% will want to play the long games (6- hours). I think the ranking system should reflect this, since any 'score' will differ by a large amount if the game lasts five hours instead of 30 mins.

I personally dont expect much of the shouting and yelling. Sins is an inherently slow paced game that is made to be targeted more toward 'older' people and anyone that has that type of attitude will quickly write this game off as 'gay' since no matter what the devs do, I dont see any way that this game can become a clickfest. There is too much time in bewteen each action and reaction, too much actual thought put into the game.

I think a 30 minute game is completely unreasonable and would seriously detract from the fun of the game. This game was designed to combine RTS and TBG's most "good" RTS's last 30 mins minimum. To say that you can have all the planning and strategy of a four hour (minimum) game squeezed into a 30 minute game seems like quite a lie to me and would put me off from the game quite a bit. (Not that I would really have a choice since I already preordered the game, but still.) Too many games have had great ideas for long term games, but have been cut short because of early game strategies that make it so you can never get into the late game phase of the game.

---

I also think that an overall campaign map would be desirable, if not necessary. The entire point of this game is three entire civilizations fighting each other to the death. To take that idea and reduce it to basic skirmish matches would be evil. I personally think that an overall campaign map should be initiated in which the three sides each control a set portion of the galaxy. Players should start out in a sort of 'military training school' where they learn the overall basics and eventually compete against other 'noobs.'
After they get good enough, (yes, it should be possible to stay in military training school forever, personally I think that it would be more fun never 'graduating' than being thrown against people that are really good at the game and will just beat you every time) they should gradually be 'thrown into the heat of battle' and fight for whichever empire they choose. Small, medium, and large skirmish maps should then be set around the large campaign map, each map being its own sort of 'lobby' for people who want to play that particular map. The more wins any race has in a given 'sector' the more technology/cargo/whatever bonuses that race recieves and the stronger the losing race's AI fights.

Tell me if anything about this post is confusing and ill try to clear it up.

Well this is my first post and I don't have the beta, as I'm going TDY here shortly and wont have time to play. I must start off by saying from what I've seen in Multianna's videos (thanks by the way, wish there were more!!) the game looks very promising.

I do have one question that I don't believe has come up yet, and if it has sorry. Is is possible to choose on a multi star map to have players start on complete opposite sides (in different systems) to allow for true Empire building capability, or is it just a pure random locations?

Imo , games on ladder will have to be designed on fast small maps to play under 45 mins . Although alot might think that you could have bigger maps and have games that last 1-2 hours thus involving more aspects of sins then just cobalt rushing the problem arises that games like this could last anywhere between 1-10 hours. A game thats designed to rush usually has a smaller time-spread , I estimate at 30mins-2hours , averaging 45 mins.

If I knew that I could potentially be stuck in a 1v1 competative game for more then 2hours , I would not ladder. I would rather just play a custom game and have tons of players (better way to spend long games ) and be able to save game and quit if I need to get up early the next day.

On another note, I think my idea of inter-galactic-war intergrated with matchmaking is the way to promote ladder to appeal to all players , but dont know whether to present my idea unless the devs are interested. Atm im sceptical about ladders .How many players want to play Sins as a fast rush game? I think the idea i-g-w will actually work better then ladder in appealing to more players

These are some designs ive been thinking off for maps in Soase 2v2 short-games. I like to give a bit of a variation with some fast maps , some slow maps etc and all the maps have a distinct flavour and approach. Some require more teamwork then others , some require to take advantage to the shape of the map. All maps should last about 1 hour - 2 hours so can be completed in a single session. Hopefully IC will release a mapmaker ,otherwise they can nick my ideas if they want...

Desolation

In this map , players are expected to try and grab their second terran planet asap , then go for control of the star. The star is a big conflict point as it opens up access to the inner ring of Desolate planets.

Pace::Moderate/Fast
Teamwork::High



Fire And Ice

This map comes with a cross design. Battle at the star to try and control either the volcanic or ice planet. Each spawns of 3 asteroid planets which means they are very important sources of resource. Can your team get control of both planets thus giving you 6 Asteroids, or will you only get one? Maybe one will research artic colonies and the other will research volcanic colonies? Maybe each team may just try for one and not contest? Fire or Ice?

Pace::Fast
Teamwork::High




Flashpoint

A fastpaced map that lends itself to fast attacking and quick reaction from both players to gain control of the Asteroids. Further into the game , players will start to apply teamwork to control and protect the ice , fire and desert planet whilst using the Sun as a possible route of Team combined attack. But players must watch out , you are only an asteroids throw from your enemy throughout the game. (played left to right)

Pace::Fast
Teamwork::Moderate



Kharaks Cross

A Cross designed map with a simple design which makes it a popular choice for a standard game. Asteroids around the outside give an incentive to be aggressive to lay claim to them. Battle towards the star in the middle and you could be rewarded with the capture of two asteroids and the tactical opportunities to attack any player or be attacked by any player!. Sometimes a good choice for 4 way ffa.

Pace::Moderate
Teamwork::Moderate



Sarum's Guardian

"I want back position" , something you might hear alot when you play this map. This map forces players into the roles of Attack and Support. The emphasis is on the Support player to balance his expansion with assistance , whilst the foward player tries his best to contest the planets in the middle and not die.

Pace::Slow or Fast - Depends
Teamwork::High



Terah Belt

A slower paced map with less emphasis on fast rushing. Players have time to control their half of the system before engaging in combat amongst the dead asteroids.

Pace::Slow
Teamwork::Moderate

I like the maps in general, but...



Something is wrong with the picture on that one -- it doesn't show most of the starting locations