Beta 4 Feedback - Seasoned game player/tester

from Sins Forums
I have just played the game for over 20 hours and was please by many things about it. The concept has incredible potential, and that is very exciting. I do, however, have some critiques that I hope are helpful. First, let me qualify myself by saying that I have beta tested about 10 games over the years – though admittedly only one of those was a RTS. Perhaps more importantly, I have been gaming for many years and have played a wide variety of computer strategy games as well as tabletop miniatures – notably battlefleet gothic and its ilk. Lastly, I realize that the feature set is certainly fixed by now and that time to rebalance things is limited, so I will not suggest anything that goes greatly outside of the current build. I also understand the principles of making a game suitable to the largest audience possible, niche does not make a company enough money to recoup the creation costs. And lastly, I realize this is still beta and that things are being worked out behind the scenes.

All that being said, let me say why I think the game is currently floating in no-man’s land between genres, which is dangerous. It doesn’t have the rush feel of many fast games such as SC, C&C, etc, which is fine as I realize that is not the market of a 4X games. However, it lacks the depth that one would expect from a 4X games, understandably due to the nature of realtime, but there needs to be compensation for that to keep it enjoyable.

Ships

The gap between capital ships and frigates complicates many things, as does the fact that new capital ships do not need to be researched. A third "combat" tier, in my estimation, is desperately needed. The "support cruisers" are insufficient. I highly recommend, surely to def ears, that you make battlescruisers and battleships/dreadnaughts different classes. Each race already has five cap ships, so this would be a matter of each having two battleships and three battlescuisers. A player starts out with the option to pick one of the two battleships as their flagship, but they do not start with a capitalship foundry (Were this "first" ship came from need not be explained, it is an acceptable omission for game-play sake). Battlecruisers then become a researchable item, as are capital ship foundries. Two additional points to this: First, of the two battleships for each race, one should be generic (i.e. the Tec Kol) and the other should be specialized. The specialization for the other should be race specific. (I.e. Tec get a missile ship – Marza – and one race gets a carrier, and the third gets… (another weapon class that is missing – I will get to this in a moment).

Scaling

The ships are simply beautiful, separating this game from its most similar competition. Unfortunately, I never get to see them. The size difference between the capital ships and frigates combined with the fact that ships stop at max weapon range means that I am almost always zoomed out to a distance to where I cannot enjoy the capital ships in their full glory and can barely see the frigates; and on top of that fact, many small fights go unobserved as I manage my empire, adding up to the player almost never get to see most of my ships. Thus, you have neutralized one of the areas that could set this game far from its competition – a fact that will not go unnoticed by reviewers. Two solutions to this problem are scaling and movement. As far as scaling goes – assuming my above recommendations on ships were implemented – should be as follows: Battleship: Full. Battle Cruisers are ½ of a BattleShip, Cruisers are ¼ of a Battleship, and frigates 1/16 of a Battleship in size. This will allow the graphical features of the game, a major selling point to reviewers and players alike, to shine, rather than become nearly irrelevant.

Movement

As stated, the fact that my ships engage at full distance means I have to zoom out further to manage them, and makes for a generic feel, and makes for very unbalanced gameplay. The first two are self-evident, but let me explain the latter. A frigate would NEVER sit there and get pummeled by the main fore gun of a powerful battleship. Frigates exist specifically because they CAN stay out of the way of such guns. Thus, frigates should be programmed to maneuver away from the main guns, thus keeping them constantly in motion, and since the weapon’s arc increases at greater distances, they would try to keep closer to the larger ships – LRM’s excluded. The result would be a) a less generic/static feel, b) more ships closer together so that the player can view them all at once from a more intimate, exciting vantage point, and c) changes the power relationship between capital ships and frigates, therefore making support craft all the more important. Frigates and cruisers should both be able to stay out of the way of main battleship guns, while battlecruisers and battleships obviously should not be able to maneuver fast enough to do so.

Weapons

As the weapons are now, there is a major category lacking, and that is the close range powerful. The TEC, for example, would probably have "rockets" which can pummel other capitalships rapidly should they maneuver close enough for a broadside. Lacking a close range punch weapon adds to the "static" and distant makeup of current engagements – no ships have an incentive to get closer. And to tie this back into the "ships" section, the third race’s second battleship would specialize in this close range weaponry. Making for interesting engagements in which the larger battleships are jockeying for position that best utilizes their weapons and minimized their opponents.


That is really all my complaints wrapped into one post, which is encouraging actually. I realize they are simple in presentation though fairly large in scope with significant implications on gameplay. But I fear that without these changes, or ones similar, the game will lack the depth and combat complexity to fully satisfy the target audience, while being too slow and obscure to completely please the fast paced fanatic. I hope that these comments have been helpful and it is understood that I am not flaming trying to bend this game to my personal taste; I have a broad demographic of players in mind. Thanks.

PS: I read on a forum that the warp inhibitor used to stop enemy fleets from jumping. The suggestion I read about giving it antimatter and have it drain as it holds the fleet there sounds like an optimal option, while making a cruiser/battlecruiser with a focused warp inhibitor seems reasonable as well. And I did not mention in the ships section that I really think that each race needs at least one fully combative cruiser. A larger/stronger hull would separate it from the frigates, as well as two weapons (ie. Laser/autocanning, laser/rocks, autocannon/missles), instead of the frigates one.

Thanks,
Mak Wu
10,861 views 31 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top
Some very good points, nice to see someone know so much about fleets and how they should operate, sadly the game is near release, and most of what has been suggested by you probably cannot be changed. Then again , who knows what was kept from us , as this is a BETA and not an complete representation of what the final product will be.

Also glad you like my phase jump inhibitor idea :)

Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top


Ships

The gap between capital ships and frigates complicates many things, as does the fact that new capital ships do not need to be researched. A third "combat" tier, in my estimation, is desperately needed. The "support cruisers" are insufficient. I highly recommend, surely to def ears, that you make battlescruisers and battleships/dreadnaughts different classes. Each race already has five cap ships, so this would be a matter of each having two battleships and three battlescuisers. A player starts out with the option to pick one of the two battleships as their flagship, but they do not start with a capitalship foundry (Were this "first" ship came from need not be explained, it is an acceptable omission for game-play sake). Battlecruisers then become a researchable item, as are capital ship foundries. Two additional points to this: First, of the two battleships for each race, one should be generic (i.e. the Tec Kol) and the other should be specialized. The specialization for the other should be race specific. (I.e. Tec get a missile ship – Marza – and one race gets a carrier, and the third gets… (another weapon class that is missing – I will get to this in a moment).

End of quote


as it is now, all capital ships have very specific roles, so implying that one is better or more powerful than another is not good and I don't particularly like the idea of splitting capitals into two groups. I do however think that some way of making different capitals researchable is interesting. still, you need to consider that this will kill a lot of early game strategies. currently chosing a different capital ship gives you an early but important choice to make, as in the beginning you only have cobalts to build more or less. then having always the same capship to go with them makes the whole thing a bit repetitive and predictable.



Scaling

The ships are simply beautiful, separating this game from its most similar competition. Unfortunately, I never get to see them. The size difference between the capital ships and frigates combined with the fact that ships stop at max weapon range means that I am almost always zoomed out to a distance to where I cannot enjoy the capital ships in their full glory and can barely see the frigates; and on top of that fact, many small fights go unobserved as I manage my empire, adding up to the player almost never get to see most of my ships. Thus, you have neutralized one of the areas that could set this game far from its competition – a fact that will not go unnoticed by reviewers. Two solutions to this problem are scaling and movement. As far as scaling goes – assuming my above recommendations on ships were implemented – should be as follows: Battleship: Full. Battle Cruisers are ½ of a BattleShip, Cruisers are ¼ of a Battleship, and frigates 1/16 of a Battleship in size. This will allow the graphical features of the game, a major selling point to reviewers and players alike, to shine, rather than become nearly irrelevant.
End of quote


some truth in there, but in general I am fine with the scales. capships need to be massive because they are. I want them to be absolutely huge and dwarf anthing else on the battlefield. maneuvering though would be cool, at least for frigates to try to avoid the big guns.


Movement

As stated, the fact that my ships engage at full distance means I have to zoom out further to manage them, and makes for a generic feel, and makes for very unbalanced gameplay. The first two are self-evident, but let me explain the latter. A frigate would NEVER sit there and get pummeled by the main fore gun of a powerful battleship. Frigates exist specifically because they CAN stay out of the way of such guns. Thus, frigates should be programmed to maneuver away from the main guns, thus keeping them constantly in motion, and since the weapon’s arc increases at greater distances, they would try to keep closer to the larger ships – LRM’s excluded. The result would be a) a less generic/static feel, b) more ships closer together so that the player can view them all at once from a more intimate, exciting vantage point, and c) changes the power relationship between capital ships and frigates, therefore making support craft all the more important. Frigates and cruisers should both be able to stay out of the way of main battleship guns, while battlecruisers and battleships obviously should not be able to maneuver fast enough to do so.
End of quote


see partly above, more combat maneuvering would surely make the battles nicer to watch, but it would also be a pain in the butt if you want them to stay where they are (i.e. to stay away from gauss guns and the like).



Weapons

As the weapons are now, there is a major category lacking, and that is the close range powerful. The TEC, for example, would probably have "rockets" which can pummel other capitalships rapidly should they maneuver close enough for a broadside. Lacking a close range punch weapon adds to the "static" and distant makeup of current engagements – no ships have an incentive to get closer. And to tie this back into the "ships" section, the third race’s second battleship would specialize in this close range weaponry. Making for interesting engagements in which the larger battleships are jockeying for position that best utilizes their weapons and minimized their opponents.
End of quote


the question here is: would these ships even get close enough to do real damage? in short I like the idea of close range attack ships, because currently we have long range and normal range. certainly too late to implement it now, but definately worth looking at if improvements will be considered.


PS: I read on a forum that the warp inhibitor used to stop enemy fleets from jumping. The suggestion I read about giving it antimatter and have it drain as it holds the fleet there sounds like an optimal option, while making a cruiser/battlecruiser with a focused warp inhibitor seems reasonable as well. And I did not mention in the ships section that I really think that each race needs at least one fully combative cruiser. A larger/stronger hull would separate it from the frigates, as well as two weapons (ie. Laser/autocanning, laser/rocks, autocannon/missles), instead of the frigates one.

Thanks,
Mak Wu

End of quote


ah, PJI. my bet: it has antimatter. it drains it slowly to do what it does now, keep fleets from jumping deeper into your territory. a research allows it to keep fleets, but that drains antimatter very fast. that means that while it can be used to stop escaping fleets the attacker can use this as a bait to drain the defenders am and just bypass the system alltogether.

lastly, there is a full combat oriented cruiser, in fact there are two. the kodiak/ enforcer are both stronger and much better versions of the factions respective light frigates. also carriers are a cruiser and is purely combat oriented. the devs could have included several staggered tier of units each being decicedly better than the preceding one. instead we have a system where every single unit is valuable from beginning to end. very well done and a nice feel and should not be changed.
Star Control: Origins
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top

Movement

As stated, the fact that my ships engage at full distance means I have to zoom out further to manage them, and makes for a generic feel, and makes for very unbalanced gameplay. The first two are self-evident, but let me explain the latter. A frigate would NEVER sit there and get pummeled by the main fore gun of a powerful battleship. Frigates exist specifically because they CAN stay out of the way of such guns. Thus, frigates should be programmed to maneuver away from the main guns, thus keeping them constantly in motion, and since the weapon’s arc increases at greater distances, they would try to keep closer to the larger ships – LRM’s excluded. The result would be a) a less generic/static feel, b) more ships closer together so that the player can view them all at once from a more intimate, exciting vantage point, and c) changes the power relationship between capital ships and frigates, therefore making support craft all the more important. Frigates and cruisers should both be able to stay out of the way of main battleship guns, while battlecruisers and battleships obviously should not be able to maneuver fast enough to do so.


End of quote



What you suggest is anathema to one of the pivotal features of the game - capital ships.

If you adjust combat so that Frigates evade the weapons-fire of behemoths, you effectively nullify capital ships as a desirable fighting force. Capital ships in this game are *supposed* to be effective - your suggestion would neuter them and elevate the tiniest & cheapest class vessels in the game.

I can`t agree to that idea.

One of my favourite disappointments of recent years was Nexus. Sins Of A Solar Empire might offer me capital ship gameplay that is properly satisfying. If anything, I would suggest adding more randomness/variety to combat outcomes, and enhancing the importance & roles of Crews...
Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top
Scaling

The ships are simply beautiful, separating this game from its most similar competition. Unfortunately, I never get to see them. The size difference between the capital ships and frigates combined with the fact that ships stop at max weapon range means that I am almost always zoomed out to a distance to where I cannot enjoy the capital ships in their full glory and can barely see the frigates; and on top of that fact, many small fights go unobserved as I manage my empire, adding up to the player almost never get to see most of my ships. Thus, you have neutralized one of the areas that could set this game far from its competition – a fact that will not go unnoticed by reviewers. Two solutions to this problem are scaling and movement. As far as scaling goes – assuming my above recommendations on ships were implemented – should be as follows: Battleship: Full. Battle Cruisers are ½ of a BattleShip, Cruisers are ¼ of a Battleship, and frigates 1/16 of a Battleship in size. This will allow the graphical features of the game, a major selling point to reviewers and players alike, to shine, rather than become nearly irrelevant.
End of quote


A purely graphical change with no real point. Exactly how would this help in any way shape or form?
Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top
Movement
End of quote
Lots of disagreement here, so hang tight as I address points of it.

As stated, the fact that my ships engage at full distance means I have to zoom out further to manage them, and makes for a generic feel, and makes for very unbalanced gameplay.
End of quote
The only problem is you managing them, however, this is how they would realistically fight. Lasers, missiles, and autocannons all have NO range limits in space. You want to talk about balancing, the balancing done is to limit the range of these devices for gameplay purposes.

The first two are self-evident, but let me explain the latter. A frigate would NEVER sit there and get pummeled by the main fore gun of a powerful battleship. Frigates exist specifically because they CAN stay out of the way of such guns.
End of quote
No offense, but this isn't a naval simulation. What you say is true of the navy, not of space. You want to avoid fire like that in space and you'll be out of control in no time flat. I agree, NO ONE reasonably wants to sit right in front of the main cannon of a ship-of-the-line and be blasted to pieces. Just you try piloting a ship with the computer's help to take evasive action while traveling at >200,000 kph. Hard to simulate something we know little more than speculation about, experience is the ultimate teacher and we've never had a space battle like this before--forget Star Trek and Star Wars, neither are accurate at all.

Thus, frigates should be programmed to maneuver away from the main guns, thus keeping them constantly in motion, and since the weapon’s arc increases at greater distances, they would try to keep closer to the larger ships – LRM’s excluded. The result would be a) a less generic/static feel, b) more ships closer together so that the player can view them all at once from a more intimate, exciting vantage point, and c) changes the power relationship between capital ships and frigates, therefore making support craft all the more important.
End of quote
First of all, the AI controlling the ships in a fleet (when you make a control group and give them orders) is, as far as I know, being reworked. Second ... do you even have an idea of how frequently this has been suggested? The physics systems already have enough work trying to phasejump out of a system without moving ships around, and you want a full scale mock battle? And you're talking about rebalancing the whole capship vs frigate vs support ship model some sixty days before release.

Frigates and cruisers should both be able to stay out of the way of main battleship guns, while battlecruisers and battleships obviously should not be able to maneuver fast enough to do so.
End of quote
Sure, they should be able to. But reasonably? Reasonably I doubt it is of any importance to Ironclad currently, they're worried about balancing, multiplayer, and final polish on all the parts. Retooling a whole side to the entire game is a little much to ask right now. It's been asked before, and most likely will be turned down once again.

Weapons

As the weapons are now, there is a major category lacking, and that is the close range powerful. The TEC, for example, would probably have "rockets" which can pummel other capitalships rapidly should they maneuver close enough for a broadside. Lacking a close range punch weapon adds to the "static" and distant makeup of current engagements – no ships have an incentive to get closer. And to tie this back into the "ships" section, the third race’s second battleship would specialize in this close range weaponry. Making for interesting engagements in which the larger battleships are jockeying for position that best utilizes their weapons and minimized their opponents.
End of quote
Less disagreement here. :D

First, close range, outside of fighter/bombers, is of no significance. Let me propose a scenario. You are a Kodiak Crusier tasked with distracting an enemy Kol Battleship. What do you do? Go CLOSER where it can get a better targeting fix on your ship, or shoot something important instead? Remember that in space you're dealing with hundreds of thousands of kilometers, even millions and billions, and the further you go the harder a computer must work to compensate for the size of the numbers. Close range is suicide against a ship where it is super accurate as a damage bonus and "critical hit" bonus should apply greatly.

Second, capships have enough trouble getting along in a larger fleet trying to leave a system. With roughly four to nine capships in a fleet of roughly fifty ships you'll notice this gives minutes worth of delays as the fleet sorts itself out. For some reason the phasejump order doesn't space ships like a move order, to putting them in formation outside the grav well causes a faster jump. And you want these guys maneuvering in close combat? Hehe, that'd be cool but unforgivingly difficult to achieve!


Overall you give decent critique, but maybe you should take a step down from SupCom and reconsider your position. Every ship has a purpose, a task, a role to perform. This includes capships. A small balanced fleet I would put together as Vasari would include a few enforcers, with their slow ability, a carrier with its fighters and repair ability, and a Stilkas ship to do in-well phasejumps to deactivate the shields of my opponent. Their fleet, if a smaller one, would probably lose in rapid order. But, that is because there is a very distinct role each ship plays.
Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top
*hands Wicked Flea a cookie in support of the post*
Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top
I think the best suggestion was the graphical issue of scale, hes right currently battles are a little too out-ranged for happy vieiwing and manuvering would be terrific.

Any post that agues for the current system based on realism is a tad odd. Its a game leave realism where it is, in real life. The devs have stated that they generally want things to be cinematic, IE star wars and such. So I wouldn't mind seeing Frigates zipping around for attack runs like fighters.

The problem being time to implement and controlling said Frigates, but before a battle starts you really should have hotkeyed them, and there is the empire tree commands. Thus we could have that, without too much difficulty.

Frankly the greatest flaw* in the engine is that Accuracy is always 100% as a result 'evading' is simply non-existent, all that matters is range to target and your speed. I do believe it is FAR too late to change that, which sadly would have made manuvering more useful/integral to frigates and such.
Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top
I think the best suggestion was the graphical issue of scale, hes right currently battles are a little too out-ranged for happy vieiwing and manuvering would be terrific.
End of quote


Well, that's the problem when you want to have a "realistic" scale (it's not absolutely realistic, but much better then most other games out there).

Capital ships are big compared to frigates, which in turn are bigger then fighters/bombers, but all is dwarfed by planets, stars and the emptiness of space. Sins isn't that bad in depicting that "realistic", though space after all isn't easy for human comprehension... :NOTSURE:
Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top
You guys have good points about why moving Frigates in combat could present problems/issues, but I think it's a big issue in itself that they just sit there while the main batteries of cap ships open up on them! Normally I'm all for gameplay > realism, but honestly if I was in a dinky frigate up against a cap ship I would definately make use of my ships speed!

This could possibly be implemented through another 'stance' option, in addition to the 'hold position' 'attack grav well' etc., something like 'roaming attack/defence'. Maybe add a section tab in the UI for this, or break up options to 'Offensive' (attack local, grav well, etc) and 'Defensive' (hold position, roaming, etc on sighting of enemy).

How the ships maneouver would be hard to code though... Already players send small groups of Frigates thru a player's fleet to force the cap ships to turn during combat, and if we wanted Frigates to move/avoid enemy cap ship fire then we wouldn't want the AI sending them into the enemy lines either.

Another issue is how the weapons themselves work... I dont think this engine works like SupCom, where every single projectile fired works on real line of sight/trajectory? If this were the case in Sins, ships wouldn't be able to fire through each other or asteroids, and so firing at moving targets might be a lost cause right off the bat because each 'shot' will essentially always find it's mark. Only way around that may be to decrease the hit % chance of say cap ships firing at MOVING smaller ships?

Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top
I get a bit upset seeing my ships firing through each other and asteroids to hit enemies. I also dislike fighters/bombers being able to fly though planets/stars to reach their targets.
Reply #11 from Sins Forums Top
I daresay that none of the suggestions made will occur, though they are appreciated nonetheless.
Reply #12 from Sins Forums Top
KHAN!!!!!
Reply #13 from Sins Forums Top
I appreciate the responses and anybody who took the time to read my earlier post, and this one for that matter. First, I was not advocating excessive realism or complete disregard for it, and neither was I proposing what "I" would like to see. I have been around long enough to know that everybody has their own taste, and if it were up to me, most games would be much different than they are. But no game is made for "me." The viewpoint I took was: What will reviewers and potential customers think? That is what ironclad is most interested in because that leads to sales, sales lead to expansions, expansions lead to sequels (all of which lead to income obviously). So if anybody mistook my post as mere "personal gameplay taste" then you misunderstood my point.

So to clarify a few things and be done with it:

Ships:

ShadowHal:
"still, you need to consider that this will kill a lot of early game strategies."
End of quote

Those are early beta strategies, not game strategies, sacrificial if need be.

SadowHal:
"there is a full combat oriented cruiser, in fact there are two. the kodiak/ enforcer are both stronger and much better versions of the factions respective light frigates."
End of quote


I am aware of that. But I find that there are a bit useless in gameplay. They have a very high research level, and I found them to be only marginally effective in combat.

Warlocklord:
What you suggest is anathema to one of the pivotal features of the game - capital ships.
End of quote


I certainly did not suggest that. I simply suggested that there be two classes of capital ships. And that the highest class remains the dominant component of the fleet and the engagements. I even suggested the armament of it define your fleet more than it currently does. As is the case for most games I have played so far, each fleet has several capital ships which confuses the dominance and tends to dilute their significance.

Warlocklord:
If you adjust combat so that Frigates evade the weapons-fire of behemoths, you effectively nullify capital ships as a desirable fighting force. Capital ships in this game are *supposed* to be effective - your suggestion would neuter them and elevate the tiniest & cheapest class vessels in the game.
End of quote


I did not say that they should evade the all weapons-fire of the behemoths. I suggested that they evade the main guns. All of the capital ships are well armored and have additional weapons that would still be effective, sufficient to take out a group of frigates if at a slower rate. Recall that my reason for frigate was multi-faceted. This was only one of the points. The others were less technical, more gameplay related.

Maneuvering:

Wicked Flea:
The only problem is you managing them, however, this is how they would realistically fight. Lasers, missiles, and autocannons all have NO range limits in space. You want to talk about balancing, the balancing done is to limit the range of these devices for gameplay purposes.

No offense, but this isn't a naval simulation. What you say is true of the navy, not of space. You want to avoid fire like that in space and you'll be out of control in no time flat. I agree, NO ONE reasonably wants to sit right in front of the main cannon of a ship-of-the-line and be blasted to pieces. Just you try piloting a ship with the computer's help to take evasive action while traveling at >200,000 kph. Hard to simulate something we know little more than speculation about, experience is the ultimate teacher and we've never had a space battle like this before--forget Star Trek and Star Wars, neither are accurate at all.
End of quote


No offense, but I am really confused here. Are you saying you are in support of realism or gameplay? You are going back and forth, so I am a bit unclear about your point here. However, let me say that realism is important to a degree. That degree is debatable. But in the interest of a wide audience of players who have different degrees on realism, I would say that "avoiding the main guns because you can" falls within reason while calculating the trajectory of a ship based on size, speed, distance, and computer computation abilities is much more complicated than it needs to be. I simply said: frigates should stay out of the way of the main guns. I did not advocate for anything more complicated than that. Ironclad is worried about making money, not realism, lack or realism, etc. Money is contingent upon two things: That the game is released, and that people are inspired to buy it. This game will certainly make it to the shelves, I was simply trying to point out the things that I felt would frustrate a majority of new gamers. One has to remember that many of you have been playing since early beta, and thus have grown accustomed to the game dynamics over time and enjoyed their improvement. However, that makes the game feel "right as is". Reviewers and first time players in the future will not have the same luxury and will place judgment much more quickly and decisively.

ShadowHal:
See partly above, more combat maneuvering would surely make the battles nicer to watch, but it would also be a pain in the butt if you want them to stay where they are (i.e. to stay away from gauss guns and the like.
End of quote


Hmmm. I wouldn't want my gauss guns firing at their frigates if a capital ship is nearby to shoot at. If there is no capital ship in range, I wonder why frigates are there engaging in battle against a capital ship while simultaneously in range of gauss guns. It sounds suicidal. That is a strategic choice of course, but I don't think staying out of the way of gauss guns at that point is an imperative. My claim to movement was three-fold, and it was not predecated by the claim that it was perfect in all situations, merely an improvement over the current one.

Wicked Flea:
With roughly four to nine capships in a fleet of roughly fifty ships you'll notice this gives minutes worth of delays as the fleet sorts itself out.
End of quote


Obviously the Battle Cruisers would be slightly faster and slightly more maneuverable than the Battleships. Thus, as it is now, the time it takes for the whole fleet to get to a jump point would still be exactly how long it takes for your battleship to get there now. No difference.

Weapons:

Wicked Flea:

First, close range, outside of fighter/bombers, is of no significance. Let me propose a scenario. You are a Kodiak Crusier tasked with distracting an enemy Kol Battleship. What do you do? Go CLOSER where it can get a better targeting fix on your ship, or shoot something important instead? Remember that in space you're dealing with hundreds of thousands of kilometers, even millions and billions, and the further you go the harder a computer must work to compensate for the size of the numbers. Close range is suicide against a ship where it is super accurate as a damage bonus and "critical hit" bonus should apply greatly.
End of quote


If you really want to play the realism card, fine. At our society's current level of technological advancement, we have satellites that can read the dates on pennies sitting on the pavement. We have missiles that can be fired from around the world at land within 1 meter of their designated target. You really think this many years in the future, with the technology to jump from one star system to the next, that there is a difference for an advanced targeting computer to land a perfect hit at several thousand meters compared to several million meters? Or even several trillion for that matter? Hardly. That is not a rational argument. The accuracy, from a realism standpoint, would be no different at the range differences we are discussing. In each case, the weapons would be dead on every time. But that is not how games are designed, thankfully. I was not advocating close range weaponry for realism sake, but for gameplay sake.

Within the semi-realistic game world, common sense says that the risk of a critical hit by a laser at closer range is insignificant to the risk of a direct hit, anywhere, by a massive anit-capitalship beam weapon. Capital ships have other weapons. Am I talking about avoiding all incoming fire? Impossible. Avoiding the most dangerous of a capital ships weapons? Obviously preferred. And i said close range weapons would be good for a) more weapon options b) bring some ships closer together for better visual effect c)allow for many more fleet configurations. Those are all gameplay issues, not realism issues.

I hope that clarifies, though Yarlen's post sounds very definitive. I wish I had made it into beta testing earlier, but I did not. My role as a beta tester is to give my input of the gameplay and technical issues. I have done than as best I could. I really hope this game turns out well and sells well. We will see what reviewers say about the ship selection and scaling soon enough, just a few short months.
Reply #14 from Sins Forums Top
My role as a beta tester is to give my input of the gameplay and technical issues
End of quote


Which also means coming up with the reasoning to support those issues. :D
Reply #15 from Sins Forums Top
Ron, perhaps you didn't read my post thoroughly. The reasoning to support the issues is well laid out. If you disagree with my reasoning, I can appreciate that. But it was certainly given.
Reply #16 from Sins Forums Top
Huh? I never implied otherwise!

What I did imply was that it was equally the role of a BT to pick apart the logic to make you prove your reasoning... or at least, thats what I thought I did.
Reply #17 from Sins Forums Top
Ah. Well your post can certainly be taken that way as well, I apologize for going the other way. I had just written my previous post, so my mind was in a defensive mode :)
Reply #18 from Sins Forums Top
I had just written my previous post, so my mind was in a defensive mode
End of quote


./ Takes advantage by attacking!
Reply #19 from Sins Forums Top
some replys.

on early game strategies: beta or not, reducing the number of capital ships available from the beginning reduces the amount of options you have at the beginning. chosing a sova over an akkan or a kol over a marza does make a different in how you should play the beginning of the game.

on combat cruiser: seriously, try the kodiak, its very effective and a marked improvement over the cobalt light frigate. I'm sure there will be lots of other beta testers to confirm this.

on movement: what I mean is that when you engage a fleet near its defenses, in static mode you can stay outside of gauss range, but when they start moving around like fighters, getting beside and behind enemy ships they can get into turrent range for a pass or two and that would get them slaughtered. to get it straight, I would regard this mostly as a cosmetical change than a tinkering with gameplay.

lastly something of my own:

what I do note is that there aren't very many ways in which weapons differ in their effect on shields or hull. we have mitigation, which is a very nice thing and we have phase missiles. I'm not quite sure if a ship's shields are down after an ion blast (by the akkan), but I don't think so, since it would be just way too powerful.

so what could be interesting is to have weapons or ships with weapons especially useful against either shields or hull, but pretty useless against pretty much everything else. or another way would be that weapons upgrades give you a choice of whether you want to do more shield damage, more armor damage or both, but to a lesser degree. that way you can in a way customize your own shield/ hull killer.

think of lasers in space shooters à la freespace or wing commander, where different lasers did different dmg against either hull or shields.

and some other thing: I think the TEC have the only aoe dmg dealer (lrms with upgrade). theoretically, there would be a potential for a dedicated aoe dmg dealer ship, which is fairly useless against indivdual ships and maybe big ships like capitals and cruisers, but good against frigs. the only thing on the vasari side that comes to mind is the desolator's missile swarm.

oh, and yeah, the usual. too late, I know.
Reply #20 from Sins Forums Top

on combat cruiser: seriously, try the kodiak, its very effective and a marked improvement over the cobalt light frigate. I'm sure there will be lots of other beta testers to confirm this.
End of quote


Yeah, its an (immense) upgrade.
Reply #21 from Sins Forums Top
Listen, makwu, this isn't worth arguing about. Please be less defensive. We're both right.

I've made no argument for realism or for gameplay. My point has been, all along, that this is a complex simulation in the package of a game. A simulation that is already difficult enough to maintain and complete prior to release. Just because you think the ships should be reorganized, which has been explained by many as immaterial, doesn't mean they have the manhours left to do such a thing. The game is already well balanced, and adding in maneuvering ships to the game will not just stress the physics systems (because collisions will happen, frequently) but also the fleet AI that the developers are already rewriting. You ask for, with your feedback, many rewrites of entire systems.

You act as if it is EASY to make a game. You even act as though it were a simple task to achieve the "ideal" in this game, when from the programmer's point of view it may not be ideal at all. Too many games have cut content, let's not encourage Sins down this path just because a few things are unrealistic. It really is a few things it boils down to. Time is, by far, the most precious commodity IC has at the present time.

As of this post there are only sixty days and ten hours left before release. I am willing to bet that the developers are burning the candle at both ends for the entire staff. They have a huge amount of new features to program, design the visuals for, and implement alongside a third race. All while fixing bugs, maintaining and increasing stability, and polishing for the final release. Just because they're professionals, it doesn't make them inhumanly durable.

Your argument for weapons is immaterial. As a programmer by trade I can tell you that computers, no matter the raw horsepower they have, can always be slower than anticipated or misprogrammed. You act as if distance, degree for aiming, and even the sheer speed weren't factors. Sure, I can diagram it all on paper and make it hit. But could the computer calculate it fast enough? This is the human range of error. A single half degree would turn a cockpit hit into a full on miss at a range of a million km. Remember the attempt by Europe to launch an expensive satellite, the Ariane 5 if you wish to look it up, only to be foiled by a buffer overflow? They blew roughly $8.5 Billion to smithereens because primary and secondary software stuffed a 64bit number into a 16bit register. The only thing I can say is: smooth move. This simulation is already quite complex. Remember that every little increase in complexity for a unit is passed to all the others of the same type. Unless separate AI's are coded for each unit, which would be quite time consuming.

You ask idealism and near perfection out of a project with a limited budget and manpower a short time from its release... and you call me unrealistic? You're looking at just the technicalities that would exist in a perfect world/universe such as you describe, rather than what can be achieved within the bounds of all the limitations I have described to you. I hope they achieve everything they've stated, rather than rewrite the whole system and fail.

I, for one, wish the developers a good night's sleep! Zombies never turn in good code, never ever. Give them a hearty meal and kick them from the office at six, unlock the doors the next morning at eight or so. FORCE them to rest. Anything but zombify and stagnate, please!
Reply #22 from Sins Forums Top
Excellent feedback makwu. Well written.
Reply #23 from Sins Forums Top
Just because you think the ships should be reorganized, which has been explained by many as immaterial, doesn't mean they have the manhours left to do such a thing...You act as if it is EASY to make a game.
End of quote


I didn't claim they had the manhours left before the scheduled release date to properly make the changes I've suggested, or that making a game is easy. I simply stated that the changes I suggested -- other than the close range weaponry -- would not require new features, but rather a retooling of the current build. If the devlopers had all the answers, they wouldn't need player feedback. I gave mine. "Manhours" is not a factor in my assesment of the current gameplayt. It is a factor relevant to their perceptions and abilties, not mine.

You even act as though it were a simple task to achieve the "ideal" in this game, when from the programmer's point of view it may not be ideal at all.
End of quote


I was not advocating for an ideal that I hold. My ideal game would be signigicantly different in many ways. Ultimately, my ideal and the programmers ideal are not going to be the same, but are also neith important. I was trying to think "If I were the average player picking up this game, what would I think." Now certainly my ability to put myself in the shoes of the average player is very open to dispute, so have at it. But that is the view I was coming from nonetheless.

Just because they're professionals, it doesn't make them inhumanly durable.
End of quote


I have a great respect for game developers, and it is a bit frustrating to be suggested otherwise for sharing my opinions of the current beta build in the ongoing beta feedback forum. Gameplay critique is not an attack on the hardworking people behind this game.

Your argument for weapons is immaterial. As a programmer by trade I can tell you that computers, no matter the raw horsepower they have, can always be slower than anticipated or misprogrammed.
End of quote


This really doesn't hold. You are talking about shortcomings of current systems, such as the UK space program. I specifically said: In the future, when our race has the ability to jump from one star system to the next, their level of technilogically advancement will be completely uncomparable to our current systems. Currently, the US airforce is mounting lasers on 747's that can track an incoming warhead upon launch and shoot it down be focusing the beam for several consecutive moments on the warhead, long enough to superheat it, through several hundred miles of atmospheric conditions. Now, lets look several thousand years into the future and ask: Will a weapons system be stressed by tracking a ship in void at sevel thousand meters but not at several million? No.

You ask idealism and near perfection out of a project with a limited budget and manpower a short time from its release... and you call me unrealistic? You're looking at just the technicalities that would exist in a perfect world/universe such as you describe, rather than what can be achieved within the bounds of all the limitations I have described to you.
End of quote


Interesting. So, if I understand this, you agree with my suggested changes as causing the gameplay to approach perfection? But that despite its closenss to perfection, it is simply unachievable? And thus, the mere act of pointing out suggestions makes me an unrealistic person. Well, I will obviously not debate the former part of your claim. But please don't say that I said you were unrealistic while in fact I am the one. I said your assessment of technology was not realistic because you aruement was going back and forth between gameplay and realism as required to support it. I never made a claim about the developers abilities, so to say that I am unrealistic in that regard does not hold.

Reply #24 from Sins Forums Top
Will a weapons system be stressed by tracking a ship in void at sevel thousand meters but not at several million? No.
End of quote


Ah, but I can counter that with: while it might be impossible for you to miss assuming you know all the relevent information, do you really think the enemy is going to just sit there and not try to "screw around" with your targeting ability? I just don't buy that! (We could go around in circles for hours on that subject, methinks... it really boils down to: who knows? Not us!)

As of this post there are only sixty days and ten hours left before release.
End of quote


Which means only around thirty days before gold!
Reply #25 from Sins Forums Top
No, counter measures to targeting systems would certainly exist. That completely supports my my initial point of some ships specializaing in close range. The argument was that the"range" would make that somehow more dangerous than taking hits from the main guns. My follow-up was "range wouldn't be a sufficient difference" for the targeting computers. And counter-measure technology would certainly exist.

But, as Yarlen said, it won't happen. I doubt that 30 days to gold is accurate. I suspect they are aiming to realse "online" in 60 days, and another 20 or so to get the gold version into stores.

In any regards, to any delopers reading this, my post was not an attack on your personally. I was just voicing my concerns and what I considered to be the best solutions. Concerns and solutions that obviously cannot be addressed in time for release, which is just the way it must be. I hope that this game does well enough to warrant an expansion, and hopefully some of my suggestions -- i.e. close range weapons and smaller capital class -- can be looked at. Thanks