A few thoughts....

Well said. We have been adding increasing amounts of 'inbetween stuff' and more is planned (enhanced diplomacy, artifact excavation system (already in), NPC's, more terrain features etc). If you compare the 'depth' of beta 3 to beta 1 you will see quite a difference. I agree, 4X is about depth and options, but this an RTS as well so we need great graphics, lots of combat and lots of explosions. Given that it's a hybrid it will never be as quick and twitchy as a C&C style RTS clone, nor will it have all the depth and options of a turn-based 4X game. Certainly I feel we've far surpassed any space RTS for graphics (especially when considering the size and scale of the game) and already far passed any RTS for the 4X components and there is only more to come. We're confident the game will provide sufficient depth and life by the end and you won't feel you are just system hopping. If you have any particular requests for tools that create drama, we want to hear them

As a side note, we've been collecting reports and looking at mutiplayer data and it seems we've failed to help the player choose suitable game settings and they often end up in a very boring, waiting game. (e.g Choosing a small galaxy and only using 1 AI player when the recommended is 4 AI players.) We do have a recommended number of players and so forth listed when choosing your starting setup, but perhaps we should disallow modifying the recommendations so players can't create what we know will likely be a monotonous, dragged out game. More to come on this.

No.

Thank.

You.

Provide a warning if they try, thats reasonable, but don't lock me into it, please!

Thank you for the response Blair. But since you asked...

Ive been thinking about diplomacy alot. Have you ever played a game called "emperor of the fading suns" ? In this game you could get voted into a regency office. When this occured depending on the office you gained certain abilities over the old empire. One office gave you control of empire ground forces..another the space and so on. My idea is similar. What if when you formed an alliance you had the option to vote in the head of said alliance. This person would get control of "multi lateral forces". Basically, If you were in an alliance you could gift units to the alliance fleet. Once this happened they convert from your control to the head of the alliances control. He then can move them as if they were his own...so long as he doesnt lose governership of the alliance (fleet assets are a different color then his normal assets). I know this dynamic would probably prove a pain in the testicles to write in, but I thought it would be cool to mention anyway.

But as for the stuff to come..I totally expect sins to be a bad ass game when its done. I also realize its still in beta with a huge amount of time left...itll only get better *cheer*

Anyway can you tell us any of the ideas you all are playing with? I realize devs like to keep their ideas under wraps, but cant hurt to ask. Thanks again Blair.

Well, similar to Leid's idea it would be nice if I could grant temporary control of my units to an ally in team games -- if I'm focusing on front A, but using some of my ships to support him on front B, its a pain in the rear for both of us because he can't save my ships from threat, or move them to do the most good.

I've noticed from my new mod , EDEN, that starting off with more resources makes the game faster and more fun... Maybe that should be implemented at least for multiplayer games... Have drop down selection boxes on the game start up screen to show everyone what they will be starting off with?

I second this 100%.

well, since diplomacy has been raised, how about a united planets assemble as in galciv II. maybe you could have the player with the largest population be elected president and he can propose some stuff, like sanctions or more and then every player has vote. this would also nicely toy into bounties like in "no, I am not voting for your proposal, I think you put a price on my head!". in any case, more reason for collaboration and temporal truces.

hm, now that you think of it, a cool negotiating system would rock. as in "I offer you 5000 gold for a peace treaty" or "you get this little tech if you vote for me on the next agenda point". I'm not sure if this is in, but if you make peace, especially by giving away stuff, make it a certain limit to declaring war again, otherwise the concept is pointless. so, to sum this up, more stuff that can be traded and lots of freedom what to trade it for. (there aren't "special" ressources so far as in civ IV or gal civ II (dip translators, etc.), are there?, they would make a cool trading item.)

oh, and lets leave it with the warning on the custom creation set. they would know what was coming for them. maybe they enjoy a more drawn out approach with lots of time to consider what to do next, or just look at the sprawling empire and enjoy the graphics. why then take it away from them?

Shadow, that wouldn't work. That wouldn't even come close to making sense. From the storyline, you have three factions "locked" at war, who hate each other's guts. On top of that, the system you describe would take way to long for a real time game. While a deeper diplomacy system is needed, what you describe is too deep, suited to a turn based game but not an RTS.

yes it is deep. well, a number of people didn't like the long waiting periods, but in a tbs that would be also be a time to think what to do with the other players, whom to join, whom to destroy and so on.

I do agree with you on the lore side though, it would not make too much sense. on the other hand don't forget that one race need not imply one faction. we on this planet have about 200 countries that can be considered factions, and the game already has various fleet designations although all of them all TEC. so assuming that there are some parties that don't necessarily share the main blocks views is not that unreasonable. but as I said, on the whole I agree with you, it doesn't fit very well with the lore, but diplomacy is kind of hard to implement properly if you set it up in a "war to the bitter end, no compromises" scenario wouldn't you say?

True. But a more "in depth" system only really needs a few things:

Gradiency of alliance -- as things stand, the non aggression treaty really only stands for a full alliance. You need various grades of this ranging from "cease fire" then up to alliance. Add in a (simple) bargaining system, and you have it. You don't need a full in depth system for this game.

The whole lore thing is why I chose an alliance fleet thing. I considered the galactic counsel, but it does make absolutely no sense   . Besides diplomacy, what other systems can you guys think of?

true enough, but then what is the difference between a cease fire and a peace treaty in real life? in theory a peace treaty is longer term and is not so easily broken, whereas a cease fire is really just a temporary solution whereby hostilities could start any minute.

but then ... there have been attacks despite peace treaties, hmm ok, the german invasion of russia was more of a non agression treaty, but you get the point. what is really the big difference and how can it be modelled in this game.

maybe you have something like diplomatic sanctions against you if you break a peace treaty, but not if you break a cease fire, or at least they would be a lot shorter. sanctions can be that all treaties with other players are automatically also null and void and that no player will consider a treaty with you for a while. you can also restrict this to parties that have treaties with the one you declared war on. (i.e. A declares war on B in spite of a peace treaty, and C who also has a treaty with B subsequently reneges his treaty with A). after all that extra profit from trade and maybe the intelligence data are enough to make you consider who to attack.

and to avoid missunderstandings here all the treaties from the least to the most extensive:

cease fire
peace treaty
various alliances ( trade, intelligence, research? etc.)

Ron: what kind of simple bargaining system were you thinking of? what tradeable items would you like to see? maybe trading items requires having a trade alliance above a simple peace treaty?

One way to possibly make different levels would be a cease-fire nothing can move across the borders, a peace treaty only trade ships can cross the borders, and a full alliance all ships can cross the borders (perhaps you could even have two alliance levels, at the basic level you only can move ships across each other's nations, and war can't be declared with your ships in an ally's territory, and a full alliance where you share LOS and can designate ships/fleets to be sharable with your allies). In my opinion, adding the trading of resources, techs, even planets, with treaties could be doable and should be done. As for other treaties being canceled automatically when someone breaks a treaty, I'm against that. Perhaps two allies have conspired to kill a third ally and then when they break the treaty, they suddenly aren't allies anymore. I forsee a lot of backstabbing in Sins (which is a good thing) and I don't think that the game itself should punish people for it (with the exception of AI wariness). Perhaps make the AIs less willing to ally or have a peace treaty which would impose higher costs on the player to conclude those deals. In multiplayer, if people aren't smart enough to no trust a back stabber then they deserve their fate   . Sins looks like its going to be a great game when the devs get done with it, and hopefully the blend of RTS and 4X genres will create a hybrid with the best of both worlds rather than a game that's not good at either genre.

I like the idea of restricting movement depending on the kind of treaty you have.

my point with the penalties was that there should be some negative consquence of breaking a treaty. a peace treate is after all something to reckon.

on another note. one subtle but big difference between rts and tbs is that usually in an rts you are at war as default and your ships always attack each other. in tbs its the other way round and you have to declare war to attack someones ships and structures. a change could be considered. also, what about some war penalty? you know, seldom do people like to be in a war for a long time. so ... decreased tax revenues as the war drags on? more if you are the attacker and maybe not having much of a success?

lastly, the idea of two allies conspiring against a third is of course a good one, I noted that as well, but there would surely be a way to remedy this if my suggestion from before were to find it into the game.

please return the true random generater.

daniel the random generators are still in the game, they just aren't as obviously placed as the old system.
besides, we need the new maps.

the random generators in the game have fixed stars and planets numbers there of.

it was the same with the old one...

no not just before they removed it


you could choose up to 10 stars and up to 100 planets.


i don't like scenarios.

i like random maps.

Hmmmm...decreases tax revenue during war...interesting. That would put a lot of focus on either decisive quick victories or major pre-war preparation. I personally kind of like it, but it should be an option because in, for instance, a 1v1 the players may want to only have war and no peace (thereby artifically making the game slower due to lower tax revenue, and one of the complaints I've seen on these forums of Sins is that it takes too long). However, in large games with variable alliances (my favorite kind of game in anything   ) the "war tax" kind of thing would make very war like players weaker so that more peaceful players would have more money and then be able to take out an expansionist warrior player. That would add an interesting dynamic. Logically it could even be explained by the rise in the military and thus the rise in the size of the military bureacracy, which would then make the government spend more money on their salaries.

Don't matter much. Just slap such terms on game features... here's what I'd suggest:

Cease fire: Don't fire on each other in "neutral" systems. Ships can still be ordered to fire on one another, and entry into each other's space triggers a combat AI (ships attack each other).

Peace treaty: Trade ships can enter the other player's systems safely, but military ships aren't welcome. (Enables "trade alliance" option)

Non Aggression: Your ships will never auto-acquire each other.

Alliance: Lets go and conquer the enemy together!

As for intelligence packs, you could go with...

External Space Chart Sharing: You can see the system types (asteroid, terran, etc) and phase lane connections of a system your ally has a scout in (any colonized system excepted -- you can't see "my" territory with this).

Full Space Chart Sharing: Your ally gets maps of "your" space.

External Scan Data Sharing: Your ally gets the sensor feed from any of your ships that aren't in home space, same as you do. Your own planets are off-limits.

Full Scan Data Sharing: Your ally sees whatever you see, everywhere.



If you right-click on a proposed treaty, you can choose to either refuse outright or request a "gift". Gifts can be resources, or control over a planet (orbital structures remain in control of prior owner, subject to any decay process the devs add -- and I hope they do add some kind of penalty, a la fighter's without "owners"), or maybe even additional treaty's -- e. g. you don't get sensor data without first giving me a non aggression pact!



Personally, I go for the honor system. Sure, you can back stab someone once... but if you get in the habit of doing it, people start to get wise and not trust you.

If you really want, you can make the "price" request on a treaty a minimum time limit, or a "ends by mutual agreement only" clause. Or make it so that it has to go through an ordered degreadation, 5 minutes at each stage on a climb "downward" from the top.



Well, it was only removed temporarily until they can fix a multiplayer flaw with it.