i've got like 500 sins games (including beta), do i now have the bigger e-peen?

I mean is ur post supposed to be an argument or what?
Would it mean that if u beat someone who says LRM are OP it isnt true?
The result of a single 1v1 wont tell u anything about the balance of a specific unit, so pls stop showing us ur virtual peen and if u rly want to game vs me (Leinad) or anyone else of us we are all the time on IRC.

You seem very angry about this game Haeso.

Now, there are a few things you mentioned in your posts (what can I say, yours stood out quite a bit) that I noticed. You mentioned "math", well I teach Maths. I also used to play competitively online. I'm in no way trying to say I know better because I probably don't - but - you aren't talking to a complete idiot here

You obviously know quite a bit about playing this game well from what you have said. I sometimes amaze myself at how obvious a good strat is that I missed (e.g. mixing forced attacking with vengence was too obvious I cant believe I didnt think of it sooner). Lets be realistic though, for those who really know how to play the game, why play as the FTW race? Surely the real challange and appeal will come from figuring out how to make the other races competitive?

I'm just angry at the amount of crying about something that isn't imbalanced. I'm not angry at one person in general. The amount of misinformation flying around is crazy. Flak will beat LRMs in a cost effective scenario.

And as far as my "e-peen" I don't care what someone thinks of me. But the whole lrm thing just irritates me to no end. And I haven't used IRC in like 10 years. Maybe if I get it working again I will.

And I don't like the idea of handicapping myself for a challenge ._. I mean I understand what you're saying, but that just goes against my nature, I use what I feel is best for each map/team. Before that had a lot of varieties, but now there are less, the only time I get to go vasari in a team game is if we have a TEC pooling me

and no it's not an argument. It's a fact that flak will kill more than enough lrms to make up the cost, they're so efficient against LRMs that you'll be able to beat him, and then when he comes back with light frigates have an lrm for each one. And then while he tries to counter me the flak which are a harder counter to LRMs than frigs are to a flak I'll win. People don't know how to use all the tools available to them and cry nerf a unit that isn't imbalanced drive me insane. Anyway, continue here with your discussion I'm gonna be busy for 5 hours, probably won't be able to respond tonight untill after that.

Haeso, nobody cares what you have to say simply because you are unable to say anything without being incredibly rude and insulting to everyone. If I was a mod I would ban you from the forums since all you have managed to achieve is gigantic flame wars and people like you are responsible for the ridiculous "casual vs elite" thing going on in the forums atm. Get a life, please.

I'm right on the money here. From my point of view, you and others who think like you are clueless. I don't care about Korea because I'm not from Korea. If I wanted to play Starcraft, then I'd go play Starcraft and not Sins. I don't want to play Starcraft and I want to play Sins. You want Sins to become more like Starcraft so you can be happy and that makes me unhappy. You competitive/hardcore/elite/1337 players are:

1) the first to find a cheap strategy (like long range missile spam), the ones who use it the most often, and the last to stop using said cheap strategy

2) always complaining about what you perceive to be an imbalance because it always caused you to lose, not simply getting beat by someone who outplayed you (heaven forbid you actually admit a defeat!)

3) created the whole quit and/or disconnect (in older games) multiplayer game debacle because you couldn't have your egos harmed by an extra loss tallied against you and had to abuse a feature meant for longer, persistent games enjoyed by a number of people and/or friends

4) want to complain, complain, complain until you get your way and we'll have glow-in-the-dark ships, every unit being a counter to another unit, every ability being identical, no crowd control units or abilities, limits on how many of a given unit can be built so every fleet is composed of the same identical ships in the same numbers, ships gimped so badly that a paper cut would destroy them, and a stats system so you can run around with little merit badges that specify your rank of captain, general, admiral, etc. and denigrate anyone else who doesn't rank high enough or doesn't share your views

5) the first to wip out the word "troll" and cry when someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't share your views, or doesn't cater to your every whim because you must have gaming perfection or else the product isn't finished or polished enough until it fits your specific, narrow-minded ideals on the way things should be.

The competitive/hardcore/elite crowd has ruined games from Battlefield and Unreal Tournament, to Command and Conquer and Rise of Legends. I've been around the block. I didn't start playing games when the Xbox came out. While you were in diapers I was playing the first incarnation of Pong, the original Atari Grand Prix, and the original Paper Boy. Things never used to be like they are today with people bellyaching about anything and everything until the horse is beaten so dead not even the best forensics team in the world could identify it. Let's talk about legitimate issues, yes, but not this way and not over and over and over again until we've changed the game to satisfy Joe, then John, then Bob, and back to Joe again.

It strikes me as strange that in a game that is so incredibly easy to mod, and provides both an auto record/playback feature and an endless list of graphs at the end of the match, that the discussion is still revolving around vague references to 'math' and 'I'll fight ye!' chestbeating.

If you have:

a) notepad

a second PC and/or someone willing to test a modification out with you on ICO

Would you care to explain why you are wasting your time trying to lobby the developers for a change to whatever rather than presenting the results of your successful experiment?

I've been out of the thread but I had to quote this. It's ironic that people would call OTHERS 'elitist' (even terrible players like myself) but not this guy. 'Half RTS and half chess'? No, sorry buddy, it's an RTS. All RTSs have chess-like attributes, and they're all massively different. But remember, *I'm* the elitist.

Even more ironically, his post was another worthless e-peen post with no actual examples or information provided. 'Na uh it's balanced' is just as worthless as 'zomg imba'.

Boxox, there are pretty clear descriptions of some issues on the forum. Why would adding 'oh and I changed x to y and it was better' add any weight to it? In any case, I think the thread has moved from 'What Brad said about his focus' to 'zomg people who think about game mechanics are teh failz'.

ZJBDragon Wrote:



People like you are just as bad as Haeso. I read so many of these posts each day and I'm completely sick of them, the way things are currently going the devs will simply stop reading the forums, as will anyone else who is mature. I urge you and others who think like this to give serious thought before you post this kind of rubbish.

Also, I know LinkesAuge and he is a very good player who very rarely loses games (also, he doesnt quit if he does lose) so that answers points 2,3,4. He always plays random - answers point 1 (if TEC > all he would always play TEC). In short, your entire post is a baseless personal attack on someone who you do not know and have probably never played with. Like I say, this kind of crap is just gonna push people away from the forums - a result bad for everyone.

Bugger, I can't edit after someone posts.

ZJBDragon has a damn good point about the dangers of balancing. I touched on it earlier, but his examples of other games are right on. Every unit SHOULDN'T be able to do everything: each faction SHOULD have a preferred method to fight, because their units aren't universally capable. If you lose because you do something that doesn't work, that isn't necessarily a balance issue at all, particularly with factions like Advent that require a different sort of play.

Counterstrike spent a decade constantly rebalancing guns because people complained. Complaining isn't valid: only facts are, which is why Brad has no time for simple 'zomg Advent teh suckz' threads.

It's not easy to get everyone on the same mod for multiplayer, how about you mod your single player, which you can do for yourself and have no opinions about balance that you have to deal with. You can make the game as balanced as you want with no issues.

I think high level players are a great resource to the game community, however, this expertise is not great enough to escape the law of unintended consequences. Nobody knows anything from people just typing about it, a change is only known to improve the game once other (potentially better) high level players have pulled it apart. I don't think Brad is going to run this based on who has the biggest forum ego or who can create the biggest pile of forum tears or rate ideas based on who has the most wins. Put the work in, don't expect IC to troubleshoot and test their way through every idea anyone thinks up, use that clan social network and expertise to work on something useful.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

That's funny, I thought you would have had an excellent social network full of people who respect and trust you who would be prepared to sit down and test every wonderful idea you can come up with.

And yeah, I have played with modding the game here on the local LAN a lot, but the strange thing is, usually I end up finding out why IC set things they way they did in the first place. Seriously, try it sometime.

man i wish i could delete my own posts.

You know, it might be helpful to point out that the vast majority of people who play MP probably don't surf the forums at all. The fact is, casual MPers are people who really don't care about your super efficient build order, and if they do get on the forums, and read the thread, they will probably think: 'What a lame, incredibly un-fun way to play the game. I will never in my life care so much about buying 200 crystal at the start of every game.'

I mean, seriously, face it. Most people who play games play them to have fun and blow off some steam. Scouring the forums researching optimal build strategies is not a line of behavior conducive to casual fun. People who spend that much time online are just 'elite players' in the making. By elite players, what I mean is people who min/max everything to it's utmost content, and find the 'best way' to win.

LRM spam sucks. Siege frigates are almost useless. I know. But if I run into a game online that has someone ruining the fun value, I'll probably just quit and either find another game, or play singple player. I have a feeling that this is the way most people operate. So, go-go Frgoboy.

Congrats on the great game!

Ditchdigger, thank you. I couldn't have said it any better. I'm just a casual gamer (a noob even - I still don't know what all these cap ship capabilities are and how they work exactly) and just want to have some fun playing this game online.

My first couple of online games (played over the last week or so) were actually just that: fun. Yesterday I joined a "noob only" game and had a blast playing a balanced game where we each built up our empires and started forming alliances and fought big, long battles.

I joined another game today expecting just that again, and instead got owned by an LRM-rush within 20-25 minutes. I had only one planet and one asteroid and just got blasted to pieces.

I don't mind losing a game. I've been playing computer games for ages (I was around in the Commodore Amiga 500-times, if anyone remembers those) and I'd like to think I can learn from the experience if I get beaten. But it has to be fun, and this wasn't. Even though I tried to hang on for a few more minutes I pretty quickly realized how hopeless this was.

So I quit the game. Now, the game was over after about a half an hour instead of an hour of two. And instead of a strategically interesting game with lots of empire building and fleet maneuvering all I got was frustration. I never got beyond my home base.

That goes against everything this game is supposed to be about.

You were probably being sarcastic when saying "go-go", ditchdigger, but I do really think that Sins is a great game. My first few online games against fellow noobs showed me just how much fun it can be if your mindset isn't "I have to win as quickly as possible at all cost and maximize my build strategy".

My hat is off to Frogboy and all the developers of Sins. You really did do a great job, and you deserve the praise.

But I'll probably only play against people I know and avoid those who just want to add another win to their list in the least amount of time possible. And I will indeed quit any game with anyone who has that attitude. My time is just as precious as yours and I'm not in the business of catering to the "fun" of exploiters while I get my ass kicked.

But that's the issue people apparently have with players who pay attention: they win. This should seem obvious (and I certainly don't resent my losses) as 'casual' players don't really care what they're doing, and competitive players do, and are thus more effective.

Honestly, saying 'someone better than me defeated me and that isn't what the game is about' is childish. *ALL* RTSs have this phenomenon, it's why I mostly play 'friendly' games with people I know rather than random games. Crying about people who 'just want to add another win' is really sad - holy shit, players who want to WIN? Players who develop strategies to win? They ruin the game for people who don't want to have to do that!

I'm rubbish, and I'm not competitive against good players in multi. I don't whinge about it, however, nor do I try to define my casual method of play as 'better'. Like I said a few days ago, people who crunch the numbers are 'better' players, because they're playing the game in front of them instead of just horsing around. If you don't want to invest the time and research to be competitive (hint, this occurs in every multiplayer game), that's your decision. Don't insult those that do just because they beat you and ruin your 'fun' - I certainly don't.

Ditchdigger106 (reply #89) :




Right on the money ! You have just described 99.9% of the people who have purchased SINS : possibly well over 200 000 units sold at this time (17 March) ... which equates to millions of $$$ of revenues.

It doesn't take a M.B.A. degree, then, to understand that Ironclad & Stardock are very well aware of the casual gameplay preferences of the « vast majority » of their customers ...
and that, consequently, IC & SD have little interest in « catering » to the extreme, special needs of the 0.1% « elite ».

Reply #90, by dakdak77, illustrates why IC & SD must not optimize the difficulty of the game to cater to the tiny hyper-competitive minority.

Please don't assume that just because you got beaten in the first 25 minutes that their strategy lacks skill. Think of it as playing tennis vs, I don't know, Mark Philippoussis - there would be an infinity of other ways for him to humiliate you if you ever got past that point, but you will probably never see them, because you're not even good enough to return his opening serve.

Pnakotus, are you replying directly to me in your post? Because you're putting words in my mouth that I never used in just about every paragraph.



Who said I don't care about what I'm doing? I've played quite a few single-player games to learn how Sins works, but it's not all in the manual. For example, the manual doesn't tell you much at all about the special abilities of the cap ships, so you'll have to learn while playing.

But one of the reasons I bought this game is because of the MP aspect. I like the challenge that playing against other humans gives me, but it has to be a fair challenge.



Again, that's not what I said. I never said I don't want to win, or that others don't want to win. I said I'd want to avoid those who just want to add another win to their list in the least amount of time possible. I'd like to use all the options in this game to their full potential and you just don't get that chance if you get crushed in 20 minutes.

Look, if I want instant gratification, I'll play a game of Counter-Strike, where each round only lasts 3 minutes max. It's a tactical game: meant for the short term.

When I play Sins, however, I want to do what the game is about - build an empire, form alliances with other players, build up my fleets so that we can fight epic battles, and so on. It's a strategy game, and "strategy" inherently means that you need to take time and think about what you're doing.

How is it strategy when you're re-using the same way to crush your opponents in 20 minutes game after game? And, even worse: how is it fun for the other players involved?



Re-read my post. I never said that the casual method of play was 'better'. Just more fun.

What's the point of a strategy game if you can't actually use strategy? All I was doing in the game I mentioned was building ships as fast as I could to try to stop the onslaught that was brought on me before I even really got started doing all the things this game has to offer, like colonizing planets, researching techs and different ships, building up defenses, even scouting the whole system.

In the end, just trying to get a quick win will drive many players away. It certainly made me re-think my initial idea of joining any open game (expecting a fun competitive game instead of just a game of "I'll kick your ass in 20 minutes and move on to my next opponent to repeat the process").

How long do you think you'll be playing online in Sins FFAs if someone did that to you all the time?



Just where in my post did I insult someone? And where did I say I don't want to invest time?

You know, all I'm trying to say here is that this hypercompetitiveness of some players is not a good thing for the game in general. Most casual players will just quit online play altogether after a few frustrating 20-minute defeats, or we'll suddenly see an abundance of "friends only" password-protected games where you don't get the opportunity to meet people who want to play just like you and actually have fun doing it. The only open games will be started by game exploiters and no one will join them - except unsuspecting new players, who will quit in disgust after a few games like that.

And I care enough about Sins to take the time and write about that in these forums.

Dakdak, how do you know?
Because after three patches players can still win in 20 minutes vs an enemy that is unable or unwilling to prepare for pressure it is obviously planned that way.

You like building an empire and preparing for big battles, but sins is not limited to that.
Early pressure is a strategy that can be just as effective as an economic giant or a super advanced fleet.
Someone who goes for early pressure neglects other areas. If you can defeat him in a cost effective he has to deal with a big disadvantage later.

You cannot simply condemn strategies because you dont like them.

The "annoying" thing about early pressure is that if it succeeds the player who played it has won (the team gained an advantage), while if it fails the player who played it has not necessarily lost.

If Sins would really be meant to be an empire builder with players controlling huge fleets, why do we all have to bother with the beginning phase every single game?
If it was really meant to played the way you desrcibe, why isnt there some timer that prevents combat between players for 30 minutes?

The reason is that Sins is a RTS, and early combat is an as big part of it as long term strategies.
Just because the AI is unable to create any early pressure does not mean it is wrong to do so in MP...

I'm quoting Carbon016 from another thread:

That is quite the irony. Due to the black market change, the only viable strategy vs TEC trade port spammer is the all out early rush.

It's funny because if the map is small enough for that to work, against a good TEC player... LOL HAVE FUN WITH EMBARGO.

This whole thing boils down to the same lesson I thought stardock learned with GalCiv. You've got to decide what you want the game to be and stick with it. Sprawling single player empire builder and fast paced multiplay are two totally different things with totally different needs and you guys are going to go crazy and fail both design goals by trying to do both at the same time.

I think it's safe to say the unvocal majority of customers play this game and games like it for the single player experience. I know I bought it exclusively for that. I have no desire for "competitive play" with rude people who can't spell pussy right. Or to learn the latest cheese strategy the hard way in my limited play time. Meaningless game after meaningless game just to increase the size of my ePeen, is not my idea of fun. Just listen to the tone of the posts on this forum, that's the competitive multiplayer community for you.

You can't shoehorn a satisfying space opera following the rise of a fledgling race in it's expansion across the inky blackness of space into a 45 minute game suitable for multiplayer. You just can't. As it is I'm pretty over this game as that's what it tries to do, and it fails as far as I'm concerned. I feel it was 5 tokens well spent, and look forward to future titles/patches/mods, but this game was trumpeted to be 4X and it's no X, it's just another RTS with the same 3 vaugely differing factions, and "frigates" and "capitol ships" instead of infantry and tanks. Thanks, but I've already got Dawn of War, and it does it better.

Reply #99, by Habadacus, is « spot on » ...

(excluding the use of the word « p***y »)