Red_Priest Red_Priest

Still disapointed in the race similarity

▼

Still disapointed in the race similarity

from Sins Forums
It's been a long while since I have posted. And for what it's worth I would like to voice a gripe, which probably nothing can be done about at this stage (and I suspect others have griped about it too but I cannot find forum search.

Anyhow, I am disapointed that the races are so similar. Why are there functionally equivalent ships for Vasari and TEC? I have noticed that there are differences between the ships, but they are rather minor. Differences were one thing that was pretty cool with Homeworld Cataclysm and Command and Conquer Generals. The different factions were just so different and you actually had to significantly rethink the sorts of armies you would want to construct on the basis of which faction your enemy is. You had to think about what your factions strengths were in contrast to your enemies. Granted this still ocurs in SINS, but to a much lesser degree. And it is this seriously lesser degree that I am disappointed. The rock scissors paper relationships seem to still largely work all the same way regardless of whether I am fighting Vasari or TEC because the ships are already slotted into functionally equivalent classes. If you know the relationships between the classes (eg. basic combat frigate, anti-fighter frigate, fighter carrier corvette etc.), then there is not much to learn about the specific ships a race uses. This seems to demonstrate a lack of creativity. Yes, it is easier to balance stuff that way, but it is balancing while allowing great variety that makes a good game.
12,211 views 50 replies
Reply #26 from Sins Forums Top
In each case the people who post are attacked by an identical group who seem to believe that a discussion consists only of rote repetition and that anyone attempting to point out weaknesses in the game is somehow attempting to directly attack their baby.
End of quote


QFT

sadly :(
Tec have shield regeneration capabilities, Vasari don't.
End of quote


Huh?

Ah, you mean the Hoshiko's special abilities and the Dunov shield restore, for a moment I've thought you talked about no shield regeneration at all for the Vasari. (Because that would have been a pretty large difference. ;) )

Starcraft took eight years to balance reasonably close, and people still bitch about unbeatable strategies.
End of quote


Sorry, that's a bit silly. Starcraft wasn't badly balanced after the first few patches, it just wasn't balanced perfectly (and no game will ever be).

And I don't get your hate for Starcraft. It had the usual Blizzard interface (they even reused it for WC3) and it works quite well, though it's nothing revolutionary.

Starcraft was the first real time strategy game with really different races, not just copies of each other.

and people still bitch about unbeatable strategies.
End of quote


People always whine about unbeatable strategies in all RTS. Mostly after they've lost to someone, but not nescessary because the strategy used against them was uber.

Whether they are different or not isn't opinion, isn't antagonistic, and isn't arguable.
End of quote


But the argument isn't about if they're different or not. The argument is about whether they are different enough.

And it's not only the combat part. We also have the empire part which is pretty much the same for both sides.

-----------------

Given that when beta 4 was released, everyone insisted they were identical, a little bit of tunnel vision has developed on the subject.
End of quote


Some few individuals said that. Constructing out of that that everyone insisted on that is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? ;)

----------------

While it is true all functions are covered to give players a full playing experience with any chosen race, the differences far outweigh the similarities. We want players to trade, use culture, build fleets, and perform all the exciting functions of the game. All your basic frigate roles are covered, but they have major differences in their secondary functions.
End of quote


Well, that's perhaps one part where some (at least I do ;) ) argue that the races aren't different enough. Everyone trades, everyone uses culture, etc. And all primary roles of frigates are the same. It's a design decision of course that is understandable. Doesn't mean that I can't want to have an other design philosophy. ;)

----------------

But anyway, discussion about that topic isn't very fruitful in the end, since nothing much will get changed until release (we got featurelock quite some time ago).
Reply #27 from Sins Forums Top
Firstly,How the heck is Caael antagonistic here? He is actually much less antogonistic than most of the people posting here.
End of quote

if you ever see Caael's posts you'll see what I mean. he screams "fanboy, lunatic, asshole" to everyone who doesnt agree with him in some form or another. he degenerates your point far more than he does mine, you should be the one concerned about him hurting your point.

trust me, its not a good idea to defend him.
now, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that you in fact do not know Caael.
just saying a point is irrational is no argument against it
End of quote

I never said that, I said a point being far to showy, grand and sweeping (which is exactly what this point is) is an argument against it. its always been just a whinefest with no real usable input. I believe its the first topic where the devs actually avoided the thread because it was so useless.
Are you actually denying that there are ship classes that cross races?
This would absurd to do. It is roughly this level of function that I am complaining about. The game would be much more interesting if there were no simple 1-to-1 correspondence between the ship types between races. This is NOT the stupid claim that all the ships are the same such that its makes no difference how you play
End of quote

this was one concern that the broad sweeping "similarity" argument cannot hold onto. ships are diversified heavily, its just not readily apparent when you just look at the pictures of the ships

and not having a 1v1 corrospondence is not going to happen. its masked, but even games like starcraft have a roughly 1v1 corrospondence with their units, they just are more obviously different.
Rather the claim is that picking one race over another should make an even greater difference to how you play than it presently does in the game
End of quote

thats all very nice and idealistic, but its not helpful unless you produce a reason for your concern. I've never thought that the races play similarly, and the fact that people stick very heavily their "favorite" race makes me relatively certain that this concern is a facade only.
However, don't get so hostile to those persons expressing alternative preferences. And just because you are more vocal does not mean you are right (that would be "hillbilly" reasoning).
End of quote

why am I getting this again?

"
In each case the people who post are attacked by an identical group who seem to believe that a discussion consists only of rote repetition and that anyone attempting to point out weaknesses in the game is somehow attempting to directly attack their baby.

I really hope that this game is great, hell, I bought it beforehand on that hope. The noise level on this forum created by a group of fanboys is extremely high and pretty much precludes an honest discussion.
"

that would be Caael, thank you.
Try understanding the opposing position before lamely criticizing it as something from a hillbilly. Isn't hypocracy grand?!
End of quote

thing is that I do understand where you're coming from, but I know almost certain that the point is wrong on most accounts. I'm not calling myself omnipotent, but if your biggest complain is that the "ships are too similar" then you do not have a case at all.

now, I dont hold do psychoak's level of diversity in the races, but I certainly think that he provides much more tangible evidence and support in a single post than this "similarity" concern has in the month its been circling around.
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #28 from Sins Forums Top
The two sides play nothing alike from the very start. TEC don't need to pump out fleet upgrades right off, Vasari do. Tec have shield regeneration capabilities, Vasari don't. Vasari have mobility upgrades and powerful disabling and planetary bombardment weaponry, TEC don't.

Yes, they both have a basic frigate, a missile frigate(sort of, we're being loose here, a look at the damage types reveals that torpedo frigates are designed for nuking capital ships in particular and vastly more effective at it than missile frigates), a flak frigate, a siege frigate, a carrier, a heavy cruiser, and two supports. The supports aren't anything alike, but they both have two supports.

TEC is a production powerhouse, pumping out units in large numbers with ease, vastly greater ease than Vasari. This is true at the start by virtue of skirmishers being eight fleet points instead of five and being a hell of a lot more expensive, and it is true at the end by virtue of TEC having 8 more logistic points on every planet and a percentage of all expenditures from the opposing sides. The vasari are a side based around mobility. They have abilities to take it away from the enemy, and abilities to improve their own. This is true from the start when they can use marauders to boost their own speeds or evacuators to slow the enemy, and it is most definitely true at the end when they have phase gates connecting every planet and can create temporary points deep in enemy space with an inhibitor immune, fast moving capital ship and mass reducing armor upgrades.
End of quote

Yes, differences exist and the two races don't play the same. But the basic ships and strategies are still very similar. Yes, capitalships aren't the same. BUT: They still all cost the same and there is still 1 battleship, 1 carrier, 1 support, 1 colonizer and 1 planet bomber for both races. From my limited experience both races need roughly the same amount of resources, the same amount of planets and the same amount of fleetpoints to compete with the other race.


Instead of pointing to more differences in other games, consider what really existed. Starcraft took eight years to balance reasonably close,
End of quote

Uhm, the last balance patch was either 1.08 or 1.09 and those came out in late 2001 and early 2002 IIRC, since then it was all fixing bugs, adding features, adding bugs and fixing the newly added bugs ;).
and people still bitch about unbeatable strategies.
End of quote

people are stupid. Professional gamers play all 3 races, they depend on winning to keep their jobs and their incomes, I'm certain most of them would immediatly pick the strongest race if there was one. And none of the people claiming there was an unbeatable strategy can ever back this up.


Fanboy syndrome is hardly a new creation for Sins, instead of the glorious bullshit Starcraft ideal, I see a terribly clunky interface, three unique sides they ripped off from games workshop with barely any modification, and oodles of patches over several years before it resembled the perfect game balance certain individuals had been claiming was there from the start. That it got those oodles of patches over eight years is the high point of Blizzard. They might not be able to get it right to start with or come up with their own ideas, but they at least keep at it unlike most of the gaming industry.
End of quote

Interface: 10 years old - enough said.
Ripped off from Games Workshop: Yes, nobody else ever does that. And I'm sure GW wasn't inspired somehow from Starship Trooper, Ender's Game, Alien and other books and movies either but invented it all from scratch ?
Patches: Yes, certainly what keeps their games alive so long.


skirmishers floor cobalts.
End of quote

even if you compare resource and fleetpoint investment and not plain numbers ?
And then, is there are larger strategic difference between cobalts and skirmishers ?

Sorry, the post is a bit rushed, but I wanted to finish it before leaving the computer.
Reply #29 from Sins Forums Top



Well, that's perhaps one part where some (at least I do ) argue that the races aren't different enough. Everyone trades, everyone uses culture, etc. And all primary roles of frigates are the same. It's a design decision of course that is understandable. Doesn't mean that I can't want to have an other design philosophy.

End of quote


good point. except for research all the 4x stuff is identical, which is a bit of a pitty. differing uses of the variou planets over races or different emphasis on trade and culture would be nice (though the advent is supposed to be good in culture, so thats a plus).
Reply #30 from Sins Forums Top
From my limited experience both races need roughly the same amount of resources, the same amount of planets and the same amount of fleetpoints to compete with the other race.
End of quote


That would be called "balance"... even in the all-hallowed Starcraft you had to have an equivalent resource base to compete, and an equivalent number of supply/power/control points to fight on an even basis.

differing uses of the variou planets over races or different emphasis on trade and culture would be nice
End of quote


Pssst, look at the ice / volcanic / terran / desert planet upgrades... TEC get 2 sets of terran, 1 of ice and 1 of desert, while Vasari get 1 terran, and 2 volcanic... I think 1 ice as well.
Reply #31 from Sins Forums Top
Sins is also a 4x game.

Many players arent going to do the whole skilled expert thing in this game . Most players will play offline and very casually. They will treat Sins first and foremost as a 4x game and the most important element of a 4x game isnt one of the "x" , its actually the ability of the 4x game to immerse the player in the Sins universe - some call it roleplay.

To have two races that have barely met , to have the same way of trading , to have the same way of colonising , have the same way of producing culture , have the same way of making ships , does not help the immersion factor.

Reply #32 from Sins Forums Top
now, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that you in fact do not know Caael.
End of quote


Admittedly, I do not know Caael and I was only addressing his specific post.



this was one concern that the broad sweeping "similarity" argument cannot hold onto. ships are diversified heavily, its just not readily apparent when you just look at the pictures of the ships

and not having a 1v1 corrospondence is not going to happen. its masked, but even games like starcraft have a roughly 1v1 corrospondence with their units, they just are more obviously different.
End of quote


In many ways I would agree that similar sorts of 1-to-1 correspondences can be found in starcraft, but the differences are even greater. While it is unfortunate that each race has artillery units, they seem to be much more different than the units in SINS. How much more difference? how do you want to individuate and quanitify differences? that would be a stupid question that cannot be answered.

There is however an important sense in which no matter how different the units in a game are we can say that they are just the same. you just have to construe sameness very abstractly. Furthermore, I have already stated myself that the units in SINS are different between different races. I also said that they are not different enough. Consider the proposals mentioned above which the critics seem to ignore.

Are you actually saying that you can think of no way by which one could make the game more interesting by, say having one race combinging LRM and anti-fighter into one and the same cruiser (and getting rid of the frigates that would do these tasks on their own). Or perhaps by having a EMP traps that could disable enemy units so that they can be captured. I am not a creative genious here, but wouldn't these sorts of difference make a much bigger difference and therefore give the game new dimensions of tactical play?

Here I would like to point out where I think the real crux of the debate might hang (once people actuallg get past saying "They are too different!" -to which everyone already agrees). The issue mught be this: Is balancing feasible with greater diversity in ships types between races? I think that the more diversity you add the more difficult balancing will be. A good game will be roughly balanced and have a lot of diversity. The above author kindly recognized my point about the infection weapon in Cataclysm, but I have not idea why they talk about the original homeworld. I wasn't even talking about it. If its units lack diversity then too bad for it. In Cataclysm this cannot be said. What corresponds to sentinels, leeches, cruise missiles, ion array frigates? Yes, if you broaden "sameness" enough everything is the same as everything else, but that is a trivial and useless point.

I think that people have confused illustrations of the point being argued for the argument itself. The argument (or at least the expression of preference) is that there should be greater diversity than there already is amongst ships types such that no clear 1-to-1 functional correspondence can be made (see earlier post on this point). This can be made independently of appealing to other games. We point to other games to highlight the sorts of things that we would have liked to be in SINS. Fact is that there are a lot of people who see some sort of diversity in games like cataclysm, C&C generals, (and I guess starcraft) that they do not find in SINS. Both sides in this deabte talking about it in terms of "sameness" and "diversity" is unfortunately very sloppy, but perhaps unavoidable without nicely rigorized criteria of the relevant sort of sameness and diversity which I don't care to develop here.
Reply #33 from Sins Forums Top

That would be called "balance"... even in the all-hallowed Starcraft you had to have an equivalent resource base to compete, and an equivalent number of supply/power/control points to fight on an even basis.
End of quote

Too bad it isn't true. If you simplify things a bit zerg needs more gas ( = more expansions) than protoss and terran, protoss needs more minerals than terran, protoss needs more supply or "higher" tech against terran, zerg can kill a moving terran force with lower supply, but will be absolutely killed when the terran is fortified etc etc. This is also true to a degree in WC3/TFT (but somewhat dominated by heroes) or MOO2 if you want to include 4X games. Generals IMO also had this to a degree, but it failed to really create diverse strategies (balancing problems?) and I never played it more after trying it at a LAN-party and hearing the various complaints other people had about it.

Reply #34 from Sins Forums Top
You complaint isn't that the amount needed doesn't vary, its that the proportions needed don't? Say so next time :D
Reply #36 from Sins Forums Top
currently the races are heavily diversified, the thing is that the scope of the game smooths out the differences. yes ideally the differences could be accentuated, but given the scope and scale of the game its not as simple as making some units more expensive and others cheaper.
Reply #37 from Sins Forums Top
I'll just post a quick link to this:

WWW Link

Because a lot of the discussion here is similar. Those who read it will see the usual suspects. BTW: Its gets hilarious towards the end :D.




Reply #38 from Sins Forums Top
Caael there were another 2 posts exactly like that one, although longer.
Reply #39 from Sins Forums Top


Pssst, look at the ice / volcanic / terran / desert planet upgrades... TEC get 2 sets of terran, 1 of ice and 1 of desert, while Vasari get 1 terran, and 2 volcanic... I think 1 ice as well.
End of quote


yes, a good start. but the only starting having more of an effect than planet development if you have two or three of the particular kind. also keep in mind this is strictly pop, whereas development included fleet points, tac points and logistic points among others.

would it be so bad if for the vasari the ice world gave the extra fp bonus that the volcanic currently gives to everyone? hm, now that I think of it, the crystals plus the fleet bonus may be a bit uber in most games.

but its not the point. opposing the idea as a whole is a different thing from making it work i.e. balancing it out.
Reply #40 from Sins Forums Top
OMG!!! A SPACE GAME HAS SHIPS ON BOTH SIDES! THEY'RE THE SAME!!!!! The frigates being similar goes without saying, half the cruisers being similar goes without saying, claiming the capital ships are similar requires detaching oneself from reality to post such bullshit without slitting ones wrists in atonement.

Melodrama is comedic at best. Stop overstating the similarities and glossing over the differences and maybe it would be such a suckfest every time someone posts about it.
Reply #41 from Sins Forums Top
My ears hurt.  :p 
Reply #42 from Sins Forums Top
I to am dissapointed with the similarity btw the races.

best point so far

I quote from a previous post

To have two races that have barely met , to have the same way of trading , to have the same way of colonising , have the same way of producing culture , have the same way of making ships , does not help the immersion factor.

i believe its says everything

edit : although i'll wait for the final release before making a judgement

Love the graphics tho - well done Iron Clad
Reply #43 from Sins Forums Top
:NOTSURE:
Reply #44 from Sins Forums Top


When I started this post I had no idea what a touchy subject this has become. My sentiment is similar to Stu1005's

i bought in right at the start and thought how great the game would be until the beta 4 release featuring the Vasari . Now im extemely worried about the Advent and how similar they will be.

BTW i wont get involved in a debate with the Pro game fan club . I purchased im entitled to an opinion if you dont like it too bad.

ITS simply an opinion.
End of quote


What saddens me most is the vast amount of intellectual dishonesty that occurs in these debates (I don't mean from Stu1005). Most people do not even attempt to try to establish where there is agreement from where there is disagreement and instead just spout names at the opposing view which they don't even care to charitably characterize. Just look at how many times in this post people say "Nope the teams really are different in this way or that and you have to play the teams differently". Why do you bother? Everyone already agrees on that point. If there is to be genuine discussion we need to establish where the real disagreement lies.
I have tries to point out that unqualified uses of "sameness" or "difference" are useless. Whenever one of use wants to talk about how the ships are the same or different we need to better articulate sameness in some respect and difference in some respect. There is a sense in which every unit in the game is entirely different and there is a sense in which every unit in the game is entirely the same. Take for example the claim:

Melodrama is comedic at best. Stop overstating the similarities and glossing over the differences and maybe it would be such a suckfest every time someone posts about it.
End of quote


This too is just useless for discussion purposes. Without trying to specify the sort of sameness and difference it is completely empty and only reinforces this idea that we can talk about sameness and difference independently of any specification. Do you mean same tactical role in regards to the race it belongs to (which can be further specified), the same tactical role against a differing race (which can be further specified), the same images, same means of production, same role with regards to the tech tree, having names that begin with letters near each other in the alphabet?

As a start I have tried to characterize what sense of sameness I am disappointed in above, but most critics seem to miss the point entirely. Roughly, a notion of tactical role sameness can be found extremely clearly amongst the ship types. For each race there are ships satisying this tactical role. You can even give a clear 1-to-1 mapping between the ships. Does anybody deny this? I don't think so. That this mapping can be made so simply is what bothers so many of us. I and many others are not saying there are no difference between the different races' ships that fill the tactical role!! That there is such a clear mapping makes the game less interesting.

If you want to say there REALLY ARE differences between the races' ships then:
-state what sort of difference you are talking about.
-Consider whether the sort of difference you are making a point about is really quite trivial such that anyone you are discussing with would already agree.
-If you think they would obviously agree then don't bother saying it.
-Take another look at what you think the opposing position is.
-Try to speak clearly.
Reply #45 from Sins Forums Top


I quote from a previous post

To have two races that have barely met , to have the same way of trading , to have the same way of colonising , have the same way of producing culture , have the same way of making ships , does not help the immersion factor.

i believe its says everything
End of quote


Good thing that he's totally wrong -- about that "barely met" part anyway.

Vasari came in, and they taken over the existing TEC economy in the worlds they've conquered.
Reply #46 from Sins Forums Top
not to mention that all those things are universal constants, I doubt highly advanced civilizations would use inefficient trading, culture and colonizing methods.


although, I can admit that *maybe* the vasari should have little low orbit command stations whizzing around the planets, rather than people that drop directly to the surface (this does explicitely go against the lore)
Reply #47 from Sins Forums Top
economy.
I highly doubt that a race that is on a run and only cares about exploiting the local area as fast as possible and moving to the next area (wouldn't mind the side effect of the local area being fully devastated in the process), would use the infrastructure of a trading species who most likely do care about the sectors they live in.

you can even see the differences in economies in todays world, difference between countries.

Reply #48 from Sins Forums Top
archpsi dont make this another lore fest, we've already established that anyone who dissagrees with the godly devs is wrong.

but to just explain why you're wrong: the vasari would have left the planets ages ago if they could, however they cannot easily just jump through TEC space: they need to fight their way through, so in order to do that simply stripmining the planets is wholly insufficient, they need resources, labor, and materiel in order to keep their fleets up and going.
Reply #49 from Sins Forums Top

to have the same way of trading , to have the same way of colonising , have the same way of producing culture , have the same way of making ships , does not help the immersion factor.
End of quote


Trading : is fine, it makes some sense, small changes that could make it more unique : give the ships the ability to phase in and out of space, making them harder to kill, also they need some kind of trade interaction animation with the station.

Colonizing : Schod's idea is good, I'd be happy with that.

Culture Centers : Change the name to , Capitulation Centers

Ship construction : I think its fine also. Could it be different and better sure, but its too late in the game to make such changes.

Reply #50 from Sins Forums Top
Culture Centers : Change the name to , Capitulation Centers
End of quote

LOL!