A mile long, huh? I don't think you can name even one good single-player PC game that didn't require patches.

Obviously I disagree. I've never play this game without locked teams with the current diplo system, as it ruins the game IMO. The AI is a pushover, and renders the game dull and depthless as it requires at best minimal strategy to best it. They may not prevent me from playing the game, but they certainly prevent me from enjoying it, and what's the point of a game you can play but not enjoy?

Honestly though, this conversation's obviously going nowhere and I'm tired of it. I'm going to go play a game that involves some actual strategy, and I'll check back on Sins in a few months. If they patch it up, improve the AI, fix the diplo, and hopefully add a bit of substance to the empire building then I might become interested again. If those things are done and the expansion promises to add some depth and greater strategy to the game, especially the non-combat side of the game, I may even buy it. If it's just a fix for things that are already broken IMO (like diplo) and a campaign (which I have no interest in) then I won't. Simple.

Til then, I'm out.

Why not play online? Seriously. It's like you bought counterstrike and decided to pick a fight saying it sucks because the bots don't have anything interesting to say.

Haha! Exactly, but I think it stems from the old GalCiv crowd. That game was a very popular single player game. I owned both of them.

If my Internet ever goes down then I will definitely play Sins on single player mode, but it's just too fun playing against real people online.

Vinraith isn't the multi-player type. I'm not, either, though, as that's what time allows for me and I dislike being thrown to the wolves if I'm no good or get either noobs or highly competitive opponents. But that's personal choice. Anyway...

SD/IC seems to focus more on single than multi-player, though tries to accommodate both groups, which is tough. Kind of reminds me of the producers of Guild Wars, where they had a bunch of hard-core multi and single player gamers to try and cater toward. You know how they say "You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time." So true.

Regardless, I think the direction IC takes for the expansion will give it either a 4X or RTS flair. Or I suppose they could try and straddle the middle some more and hit both sides of the fence to be the RT4X discussed here. I'm sure there will be strong reactions (both positive and negative) toward the next few patches and any expansion info. People sure aren't too shy about their impressions of the game, and that's a bit of an understatement, as witnessed by this thread.

SD singleplayer? Ummm no! Reason galciv was single player was because there was no resources for multiplayer, and it wouldn't work well with the slow pace of the game anyway.

And if u don't know, SD is working on MMORTS right now.

Is that why your profile image is a computer disconnected from the Internet? Funny.

Yep, I've just never been into single player games because the AI is never any good. There is no comparison to human intelligence when it comes to complex strategy. Not yet anyways, at least not available to the general public. Government maybe...maybe.

Neat!

Actually, my avatar is such because I provide Internet support for students at a University, so it's rather ironic. Although, now that you mention it, it is quite appropriate, Kruelgor.

And I agree human intelligence is no match for single-player. It's just that humans are, well, a bit more unpredictable, and while that can be a good challenge, it can also result in things being too easy or not fun. I also don't have as much free time to spend on-line as I like to be around my kids and wife, too.

Astax- are you talking about Society? That's been in the works for quite some time and will be, as it won't be coming out at least until after notMOM.

No, he's talking about the not-to-be-mentioned game that's not MoM

RT4X - well what it means is going to be a bit different for each game.

Here, you have published an RTS with a few more strategic options than most. It is also more slowly paced.

If you define 4x as explore, expand, exploit and exterminate... you DO have 3 of the Xs (exploit is utterly missing IMO). In a lot of way this game reminds me of Imperium Galactica II.


Still, I sympathize with Vinraith and many others in this thread that something feels missing. Personally I think there is one area (with far ranging consequences) that clearly separate this from being "4x in real time".

Technology. This is the biggest and most crippling difference. Not only are the technology trees fairly small, most of the techs are redundant iterations on previous techs. Worst of all, for a variety of reasons it is difficult to feel the immediate impact of a lot of your research choices. An extra 5% to one kind of gun I'm sure makes a difference, especially if you are using 40+ ships, but just doesn't have the same impact as researching a new gun that does 100% more damage (1 damage to 2 damage for instance). In the early game, an extra 6% hp does not impact the battle enough to feel like it is worth it. Consequently it is a no brainer to put off military researching except for a few key techs (repair bays, hangers, LRMs).

For there to truly be strategy there need to be real noticeable consequences for what you do. Increase HP 20% for each step in the tree and suddenly you would have to decide if you want to rush now or pick up that extra tech. Someone who turtles and researches +20% hulls and +100% guns should have a good chance with a few frigates of beating someone who eschews research and comes at you with a blob... This makes every player make important decisions about how much to research and when. This is exacerbated by the fact that there is NO tech requirement for all of the coolest ships in the game. It is a rare game where I need to worry about picking up Cruisers at all, Cap ships and frigates spammed early are more than a match for most players.

I understand the want to get players a cap ship to start with. But after your first free one it makes no sense to me that the rest of them don't come with a tech requirement.

The logistics and artifact research doesn't appear to be different for anyone, and works more like checkpoints than like discovery anyway.

The economy tech tree is then the last tech area. Here, again we have a lot of redundant techs that only matter in specialized situations, and initial effects that are too small to matter. +8% pop?? Those early resources are precious, that is an effect that won't really matter till mid game at the soonest - if you even make it to mid-game. There need to be fundamental structural differences based on the choices you make out of your econ research tree.

And that is where empire development comes in. There is barely any difference between the three when it comes to what you build as the infrastructure of your empire. How many hangers, how many repair bays, how many labs. Sure, each race gets a specialized version of something others can't use. But a space station or two is not enough of a difference.

Basically, there needs to be more balance between reseach and rush, whether econ research or military research. Also more research choice, so IF you research instead of rush, there are more ways to go. Variety is the spice of these sorts of games. For me, so far, there are not enough options and so all games feel the same.

And variety is really what is missing. I'm not saying you need 14 balanced races, but the three don't feel that different in most aspects of the game. OK, so some excel in different kinds of resources. The names and models of your ships are different. But almost every real difference between the races plays out TACTICALLY, not strategically. Because the tech trees are so similar, the strategies are vanilla and replicated across the races.

A research victory option (make it level 10 or something... or a multi-tier level 8), meaningful diplomacy, economic research options that changed the structural foundation of how you built your empire... upkeep costs for ships so that economy matters as your fleets get larger, more real differences between the three races that go beyond ship stats... and generally more to the game that isn't combat but that effects the forces in the field. That is what is missing.


Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the game quite a bit. I got my money's worth out of it, although I wish there had been a campaign with a story. I'll play it again. I respect your opinion and the products that Stardock produces.

But enjoying the game and saying that it is "real time" 4x are two different things. This game has a long ways to go before it fulfills the marketing promise of RT4x.

~ Wyndstar

I didn't take the time to read everyone's post, but I thought I would chime in a little.

Sins hasn't been nearly as addicting as I hoped it would be. I think its because of the interaction with the AI via diplomacy. Its a skeleton frame at best. I know this arguement as been made once already, so please stay with me.

The AI needs to make demands based upon its feelings for you, and not just demands but requests. Demands would follow threats, or not, depending on how they view the player's military, economical, or cultural strength. A request would suffer far less consequences. There should be a choice to completely deny the request/demand before the times up.

It would also be nice to make requests, demands, and threats to the AI. It feels like your always on a one way radio with them.

Culture is definately unique, but it also feels somewhat empty for me. Not sure how, but it could be improved.

I would like to see more depth in the infrastructure developement of a planet. Not that there isn't alot of things to do per planet, but once I get a certain number of items made over a few planets I no longer need to make anything more for other planets. That excludes a closer military base to the action, and central defense point.

Some ideas on this could be:

Exploration split into 4 upgrades.

Planet type/size/gravity better change building slots. Such as planets with a larger gravity well can substain 25% more building slots.

Some structures that could be added:
Force Jumpers - Allows a ship to jump to a planet that is not connected.
Gas Harvester - Harvests gases/minerals from other planets. This could be used as a pure trade item, it could speed up ship production, lower antimatter costs for jumping.
Check Station - A small base that can be built onto a phase line. This base has no logistical slots, and one tactical slot. Ships can be placed here to help security. This station would ensure that only allies, and trade ships make it pass. Anything else would be given a timr to leave. If the deadline wasn't meant the ship(s) would automatically recieve an increase in antimatter to jump and be possibly forced to stay. OR The ship(s) are simply force out. Either way it would be considered an act of transgression. The station would also have its small set of fighters.

I dunno, those were just a few ideas I thought of.

Last thought: Peices of destroyed ships, and junk yards can be salvaged by a salvager for other ships. Could even use peices of other ships to learn other race techs.

Technology trees are fine for a game this type. In MP even in 4x you won't reach the end of a tech tree anyway. So designing a tech tree that can be finished is a good idea. You must also take into the account that this is first installment of SOSE saga. It is not a battle from beginning of time to end of time that lasts 100 years a la moo2. So the technology you use at the end of the game, while more advance, will not be that drastically different as at the beginning.