"EPICness" What can done before SINS hits the store shelf!?!?

I like those ideas but I wonder how they would encourage them in the game though. Frontier Wars did it by including admirals you could attach to a fleet of 15 ships thus giving that particular fleet some bonus over ships that were just clumped together. For example one admiral would grant shield bonuses, another would increase damage done by a certain ship type.

ahh the uber fleet of doom   

It can't work that way. Fighters are units, and you can't just have units that exist for some players in a game but not others.

I like most of the ideas you posted. With some exception, and ill explain below.

I wonder if it is possible to limit how many ships can be in a single group. In other words research fleet logistics capacity like in GC2. Higher tiers means more ships in a single fleet. Limiting fleet size will put a screeching halt to the single "uber steamroll" fleet from forming. Therefore creating what was intended in the game by having multiple fleets, or battle groups on the map.

I am against buffing the cap ships any more than what they already are now. The focus fire tactics are by circumstance. It is going to happen no matter how many hit points you give them. In single combat (yes very rare i know) it takes quite a while to take down a cap ship as it is. No matter what type.

Flaks do work. The ship AI in general is just stupid right now. Which i hope the new AI will solve this problem. There will also be the problem of bombers getting off that alpha strike before the flaks shoot them down. IMO there should be a 50/50 chance of a bomber launching his missiles when it is in range of a flak frig.

PJI's should do exactly that. Disable phase jumping.. period. I like the idea of limited total blockage with antimatter usage. This way you can prevent escaping for a brief amount of time. Say 30 seconds to a minute?

I cant think of anything else at the moment, but i will later.

So this is supposed to be a purely cosmetical change that shouldn't affect balance ?


I'm not too sure about this one. I agree that the Jump Inhibitor could use a buff, even if it can already be pretty useful as it is, but I feel that the advantage of the defender in the game is very big already and this change would help him even more.


Then you'll get shift-click-focusing on the frigates until they are all dead and then focus-fire on the capitals Also would this come with a cost change for the capitals to discourage people from building more capitals instead of frigates with that change ?


I don't see the reasoning behind this. Currently focus targetting priority targets is a big part of controlling your fleet in combat (besides fighting against the retarded AI that tries to suicide your ships as fast as possible if you leave it alone for 5 seconds). If at some point it is better to split your fire-power on 3 or 4 targets instead of targetting a single ship, how does that improve the game or even help with "epicness".


Agreed. But How ?!
Currently it seems that you need a large fleet to penetrate any kind of defense AND what's imo more important: It takes a lot of time to kill that defense. By the time you have finished off the "static" defense your opponent will most likely be there with his main fleet, unless it was really far away. Then your split fleet has to run back to where it came from and your opponent can just rebuild. Now him moving his fleet around could create an opportunity for attack elsewhere, but again... you have to kill the defenses first which usually gives him enough time to get back there.

Now what to do ?
Weaken Cannons and Hangars ? Will probably make for shorter games, not really what you are looking for if you want to make the game more epic.
Increase fleet travel (phase jumping) time by a lot ? Will make the game boring, because it is so heavily focussed on fleet action. Unlike real 4X games there just isn't that much to do when you're not controlling your fleet(s).


"Forcing" players to go with a more or less pre-definded ship ratio ? Doesn't sound good. As for reducing the maximum amount of capital ship slots that might be a good idea, because it makes capitals more "special". But then... Is getting all those unleveled capitals actually worth it in a long game ? Don't they just insta-die to LRMs/Bombers ? Buying levels for the crew costs a lot too and all that money (research, actual ships, crew levels and it's also 16x 40 fleetpoints !) can probably be spent more wisely on cruisers or frigates.


I think the flak frigates still suffer from dumbness. IMO they do quite well if they actually do what they are supposed to do. Also, how do you counter mass fighters if you don't ever built flaks ?

I think it will be very hard to increase the 4X- or epicness-factor in the game by a lot without adding more content.

Yes, it would make the fire fights more impressive, ala Battlestar Galactica



Beta 1 had the jump inhibitor that locked fleets down until it was killed, I am proposing a lesser evil than that (with the anti-matter wear down), as it is , anything would be better than the current jump inhibitors.



Agreed

But that is how it is everywhere in the world now. Show me where there is an aircraft carrier that doesn't have a fleet with it. And perhaps make it so that you can still have frigates in groups with out a capital ship, but limit so that the group is no more than 10 ships. I dunno...



You actually don't need a large fleet, if your fleet is made up correctly, long range bombers and long range missile frigates to take out to take out cannons/missile structures, and flak frigates to protect your fleet.

In the end its not really what we come up with but what the Developers will come up with, they must see the replays? Right? The SINGLE UBER FLEET OF DOOM"TM" occurs in almost every replay, and everyone uses it. Look at any of Multianna's replays posted.



No need to weaken any defenses, if anything make them cost abit more.

As for travel speeds, I'd be all for longer phase jump times, as long as gravity well travel speed is increased, more time is wasted moving fleets in the gravity well than in actualy phase space.

lets get one thing clear: if your opponent composes his fleet accordinly, static defenses are merely a delay not something to actually hurt an incoming fleet on its own, not to any significant degree. I don't thing it was supposed to be any other way.

consequently, if you show up with a decent fleet you can bet that sooner or later your opponent will come to defend his territory and if he indeed brings a big fleet with him its good to be in position to attack one or two of his worlds on the other side of the map. even if you uses his fleet to drive you off and initiate a counterattack, by the time he takes your planet, chances are you already took 2 or 3 of his, especially if you manage to bypass border worlds and go for less defended inner planets.

on some maps - small ones - distances can be such that you can reach almost any point in your empire with one or two jumps so its not that necessary to split up your fleet, on larger ones or some where jump lanes are more linear (think of chronaks cross or convergence) a steamroller can mean your end. trust me, if you are attacked and the bulk of your fleet is 4 or 5 jumps away, you're probably dead before you even reach the enemy.

It was more exciting to watch...

Sins could use more of an excitement upgrade when watching battles (like, I dunno, different explosions, especially capital ship explosions).

What about the battle for Coruscant in episode III? Was that not impressive? Or Midway? (lol Midway).

What would keep a person from using two fleets as one big one?
haveing them attack the same planet?

Good ideas lordkosc

The problem as i see it with more EPICness is that it needs time...

As ppl wants faster and faster game speed the game becomes lessor epic. So it really has to be a balance between the 2.


Yep as i suggested on another thread.
It actually does the same as it does right now, just that it makes the player think twice about attacking a planet unless he wants to take the consequences of being stuck for a period of time.


I like the idea behind it, but it really is a hard one to do. As said a few post above, how can this be done? and i really think it will require too much work to be done in a proper way (:(
I use a big fleet because i got no other choice if i want to win a battle with minimal losses. And since my enemy will be doing the same, i wouldn't want to be under powered when i actually meet him.

If the phase jump inhibitors are modfied as such, they should definately have a manual / automatic toggle like other specials otherwise it would be too easy to by pass by simply sending in one scout ship before jumping in the fleet and letting the antimatter run out.

Mitigation cures both focus firing and steamrollers. If a two to one ratio in fleet size means an optimal damage advantage of 10%, it's not particularly effective to have a larger fleet.

Change mitigation so that it's dependent on relative strengths instead of a flat rate for all ships and make it penalizing to the point of negating the majority of the extra damage when firing on a single ship with more than one of equivalent size. Two birds with one stone that.

I think planetary defenses are too strong..

It just takes too many ships to overcome them atm, thus making single fleet'o'doom only viable option tbh.

Janster

What could be done to discourage 'singular uber fleet tactics' is an increased intel open to all players.

In much the same way a tight battle/carrier group can be spotted more easily in the open sea than a dispersed or distrubuted force.

So translating that into SoaSE, the UI could inform players of the presence of a large battle fleet much earlier and thus allow them time to plan their defence. The skill would be to navigate smaller battle groups in relative secret to a single sector close to striking range (kind of like the Babylon5 battles where they meet in hyperspace for the final jump). By the time the large battle fleet is detected and announced...

That then allows two gameplay styles to be explored : stealth vs. war of attrition.

I have been playing online RTS games for about 5yrs now and it has to be said that 95% of all games fought are 'war of attrition' with the occasional stealth move to swing the balance of power. SoaSE will only break that trend with diplomacy assuming players are open to it. The term FFA often turns to FFS when it becomes clear intentional teaming is going on...

Yes I have seen the civilian research tree about predicting incoming raids & attacks this is a twist on that same basic element and I think it would fit in nicely.

I would like to see some feature that reports 2+ players are in the same sector NOT shooting at each other.

I agree on the PJI changes



Isnn't that what planetary defense are supposed to do? They are there to slow you down until the UBER FLEET OF DOOM shows up. Hit and sun works great with properly managed flacks and LRMS.

Flacks suffer from MASSIVE dumbness. THey usually attack ships and get wipped out when they sprint ahead.

Yeah I've seen that happen to my flaks all the time, as of late I just put them on hold position near the captial ships.

Using a single fleet instead of several smaller ones is most often a function of map design than anything else. If there's only one planet that serves as the "entrance" to a player's empire, there's just nothing to do with your extra fleets, you need just one. The more open your empires become (several maps do this well) the less feasible a single fleet becomes. Sure you can steamroll a planet or two, but if he's got culture backing, you're going to be so slow doing anything that he can wear you down. For culture especially, you need to split up into several fleets to have a good chance.

When it's not a function of the map, it's a function of how the other plays. Sometimes you really need to take a specific planet, and if he's got his whole fleet camped there plus maxed out defenses, you don't have much choice but to go with one fleet. If he attacks you with a massive fleet and you really need to keep that planet, you don't have much of a choice either.

In short, the game mechanics do nothing to prohibit several fleets instead of a huge steamroller, nor do they encourage the huge steamroller. The mechanics make allowances for both, and people not taking advantage of multiple fleets is not a "fault" in the game that needs any fixing.

Any smart player with 1, or 2 well balanced groups can easily take down planetary defenses. The defenses are pretty much there as a delaying tactic. Sins brings new meaning to "a good offense is the best defense". If the PJI's do what was suggested here that will change things a little, and make things interesting. It will bring the risk factor back. Right now there is little to no risk because if you get in trouble all you have to do is retreat.

Limiting fleet size, and increasing it with research only makes sense. You dont see any country's navy putting all of their ships into 1 massive uber fleet, and steamrolling all over the map. To do that would require tremendous expense of the government pulling it off, and it would be a logistical nightmare. Battle groups should consist of at least 1 cap ship, and a well rounded mix of frigs, and cruisers. I think Galactic Civ2 has this system down pact, and Sins should use that as an example.


On smaller maps i know this is difficult to do, but try dividing your forces up into smaller groups, and test that vs the steamroller, and see who gains more advantage. Of course there is nothing stopping you from bringing all of your groups into 1 battle to stop the steamroller fleet.

Flaks need to be heavily microed for them to be any effective. I usually keep mine in a separate group set on hold position, and just move them to where needed. Mostly to provide anti strike cover my cap ships.

A Flak/LRM raiding fleet is very effective if microed to death. The only problem is the bombers guaranteed alpha 1st strike. I suggest increasing the range of the Flaks slightly to compensate. When strike craft encounter anti strike craft it should be a die roll if the bombers launch missiles, or get shot down.

A dialog should come up in diplomacy if you invade one of your opponents worlds (if no defending fleet is present) "Surrender, or be destroyed" with the option of the opponent in so many words telling the invader to F**K off, or chose the non violent surrender option to give the world up without a shot being fired.

I think epicness can be increased by more attention to detail of the 4x elements of the game. More exploration, and diplomacy options, Espionage needs a bigger role, etc.

Also by focusing more attention on the "Grand Strategy" aspect. Sins shouldn't be won, or lost with just 1 huge battle between "uber fleets". It should take many smaller battles. Some occurring simultaneously at different worlds. With the player focusing on only the most important of the battles, and just directing in the background the fleets of other less important battles. This is how the game was pitched to us in the beginning, and that is how it should be now.

The tactical RTS elements of the game are pretty much fine as they are now with a few exceptions. Like fleet size management, and formation management. The formation management is being addressed.

I know most of the RTS vet's want a quick games, but i dont think Sins was intended for that. For me the "inner geek" wants a huge long game that will last all day, or days like MOO2, GC2, Civ4, etc. Sins has the potential of being like those epic games. Multiplayer IMO is Sins Achilles heel. Not because of the game mechanics itself, but because of the way people want to play MP. Wham bam, hurry up, and get it over with style. It is understandable. Not many have the time to sit all day, or for days at a time, and play MP Sins on huge epic maps.

Another issue is that many people aren't exactly sure of "what they want". I have seen much "flip flopping" on issues like game speed, research, micromanaging, etc. etc. People also wanting this game to "be like" other games is a problem as well. We have the "I want it to be like Homeworld crowd". We also have the "I want it to be like Sup Com" crowd. With very few of us actually wanting this game to be UNIQUE. So the real question here is "What do you want?" If you want white knuckle fast paced RTS play Homeworld, Company of Heroes, or Supcom. If you want pure 4x play MOO2, CIV4, or Galactic Civ2. If you want to try something "Unique" that is the best of both worlds then play Sins.

IMO this game has the potential to become Strategy Game of the Year. We just need to make up our minds on "what we want", and give the dev's some decisive input.

I thought 'epicness' was voted out of this game when everyone stated that they expect a medium map to yeild a 1 - 2 hour 'skirmish'.

No , it is the games fault , it does need fixing. I will explain...

Ill try something , lets give the Flaw in Sins game design to homeworld 2. Lets make Resource Collectors in Homeworld 2 10000 health instead of 400, and lets make it cost 10 credits to replace a collector instead of 400. Also lets add sins run-away train economy model into homeworld 2

OMG , look at the results!?

Now im not scared about having my spread out resource collectors getting attacked. Before , what i had to do was split my fleet so I had ships protecting my resources in different locations. i also had fleets designed to attack their resources in various spread out locations . I also had a main fleet to attack heavier defended stuff like shipyards and motherships. I have something like 5 or 6 fleets.

Now however with Sins flaws in homeworld 2 , I dont need to protect my resources because they are super strong and wont even effect my economy anyway. so all i need to care about is , Defending my shipyard and mothership and attacking thier shipyard and mothership.

So what can I do ? hmmm. I know lets just make a fleet of Doom and Bee-Line it towards the enemy shipyard and mothership. Or OR ORR!!! lets just make a fleet of doom and camp at my own shipyard and mothership because I know the only thing hes gonna do is bee-line his doom fleet towards my shipyard and mothership.

This is how Sins plays out.

If however resource asteroids were more vital , had only 350 hp , cost 1000 creds to replace , man people will be scared of flanking attacks thus more fleet splitting. Yes its possible to flank and kill planets, but aswell as that , killing resources is a vital element of the game. Just look at how it would fuck up homeworld 2 if you couldnt assault collectors efficiently to hurt the enemy

epic skirmishes!

not everyone, i voted 2-3 hours



you mean like, ppl are changing there minds?
Well i for one have always been a fan of longer gameplay, but since it looks to me that most are looking for faster games, i try to come with suggestions that satisfy both camps.


I think the devs already have made up there minds on what the game is going to be, and we are just wasting forum space

Maybe some of our suggestions might come in an expansion/Sins 2 if the game sells well

The problem with HW2 is that since it is usually played on smaller maps people usually spam uber fleets anyway despite the weak resourcers, and having to protect roids. What you described was a typical MP game of HW2 for me :/ Which is what eventually turned me off to the HW series.

However, now that i think about it p5yy is right. This resourcing model could be done on top of the fleet logistics points. Most people use the traders as agro magnet free meat shields right now, because of their hit points (and even more hit points when researched). Nerfing the hit points will go a long way to forcing players to protect them.

I think I would enjoy longer games, if gravity well travel speeds were increased, I am going to try and mod all the ships default travel speeds, and see what happens.