when is everybody going to come online?

Um... no.  Sins isn't even a traditional rts, and you'd be lucky to see one online player for every five hundred buyers on at the same to for any rts, let alone one that's been out for half a year.  You're a little late, but this was never going to be an online hotspot.  It takes a good chunk of time to finish a game.

1.1 being incompatible with 1.05 may be adding to it though.

I suspect that many of the people who bought the game are simply just...wussies.

Sadly, Sins has some online multiplayer issues that may have driven some people away such as the minidumps problem and most importantly, the inability for people to host games unless they have configured their router properly.  (It's sad to see 12 people idling in the Lobby waiting for someone who can host to put up a game.)  Of course, the 1.1 patch will fix the hosting problem, but who knows if that will result in increased player counts (either from retaining new players and/or by getting people who played it online before to start playing it again).

No, which is why most players are sticking with 1.05 for online play. If you're on the beta, that'd be why you don't see anyone online.

I suspect this is a far more crucial component of the issue than people simply being 'wussies'.  There's no shortage of games worth playing online at any given time and if it's a tossup between a game that works with no added effort and a game that apparently requires a 10-page networking how-to to get going, effortless play wins.

If 1.1 makes setting up a game with my friends into a hassle-free experience, I for one would be happy to give it a try.

Good question - for me, I'm still training against the computer as I've not had the game long, I want to be able to beat the computer on hard without problems before I try multiplayer.

I'm hoping that the multiplayer side of sins is going to be a little better than alot of other games, I'm all for a multiplayer game but I dont always like the 'issues' some people have, eg personal attacks, disconnecting and noob bashing is not my idea of fun - but I'll willing to give it a try!

Fractured community. Its a sad but it happens often. Currently two versions are coursing the net. The unbalanced 1.0 and the beta 1.095 further dividing the playerbase. Adding to this is that the patches are only distributed wich some people still refuse to use. Before figuring out how to get the beta trough impulse (by enabling "prerelease versions" in some obscure menue for it actually showing up) you should take note that in 1.0 usually there are always a few games goin, the Beta is pretty empty. A lot of people have upgraded to beta, testing gameplay, writing reports (see beta feedback) and basically we just wait for it being finished, not participating in multiplayer 1.0. And actually this is not your standart RTS with a 30 min to 1 hr scope, it varies greatly with mapsize. I would not recomend playing anything larger than "small" with people you do not know personally or are friends with (see  "Quitters" in the multiplayer forum). The best way to deal with that is to organize yourself in one of the various clans recruiting in the apropriate forums.

Well, this game is not really suitable for online gaming in the first place......

.....too bad online is still better than beating a bunch of AIs.

I would not mind playing online if I know the games did not take so long. If I had the time, however, I think it would be an amazing game to play online.

Its suited for online play. Just don't play large maps vs strangers. Then its very well your 30min to 1h natural RTS time efford, and the usual randomer is rarely capable of a more lengthy match. If you spend more efford and your opponets quit you will only be increasingly frustrated. This game can be saved in online matches, so if you know your opponents you can agree for continuing a lengthy campain on a regular basis. Also its great for LAN. Its true that this is not focusing the mainstream of no patience FPS/RTS players, but it is a strategy game after all. CIV gets played online, as is ALPHA CENTAURI or MOO2, even if an entire session takes serveral days. You could say it has also certain demmands on the person playing in multiplayer. You CAN play it like traditional RTS but then i recommend small maps only, so its kinda a customizable demmand. You have to know what you are up to. If you are into huge games either find a clan OR a friend (this game is technically licensed for two installations in LAN if you care to read the PDF manual).

Well... for me the longest time I was running a half gig of RAM... caused lag on larger maps (especially with fast settings) so getting booted wasn't high on my priority list.  I have a full gig now, so I'll probably try coming on again so long as the ADD types who only play on fast settings aren't still running the show.  Clcikfest = Boring.  There's something to be said for not having all the techs done at end game.

I and my friend that just got Sins have played online twice; the beta version let us host/connect easily.  But we are waiting for 1.1 to be finished before we go full online vs other humans, and, my friend (like Chazzie) is affraid to face anyone till he can at least beat the AI on hard.  I can't wait to see his face the first time a human just cruises his ships "around" all his oh so carefully placed mass of Gaus-Cannons

ABSOLUTELY.  I keep checking the site/forums hoping for a more stable of this game to be available, but between the patches and persistent erros, it really is more trouble than it's worth to play online.  Personally, I find this all quite ironic considering that there is a "Gamers Bill Of Rights" posted on this site, and SoaSE is guilty of requiring patches, not being released in a complete form, etc.  Heheh.

I just have to respond to this because this type of thinking (whether it was serious or not, this train of thought is common) irks me.  Where is it written that everyone who buys a game must be good at it or conversely enjoy getting the crap beat out of them on a regular basis by those who play it every (non-working, in many cases) hour of a day?

RTS games in general have this problem more than other genres in my experience, because they have a certain online 'feel' to them where you feel pressured and rushed due to online 'strategies', which in most cases boil down to build orders, imbalance complaints, and exploits.  So the lesson here is learn these 'strategic' lessons or be the plaything (and sometimes tormentee of some gleefully teenager) of your opponent online.

Sorry, not everyone looks foward to that kind of fun-filled evening.  Vanillia RTS games in general, which SoaSE falls into, have the aforementioned problems that plague online play.  If you look at the exceedingly popular online RTS games of the past, you'll see they have alternative online gaming methods to the competition-based online modes, such as Warcraft and Starcraft series with their ease of modibility.  When you look at others where its all about winning, losing, cheap and honestly not very strategic (and far from realistic) tactics and strategies, you find a game that doesn't appeal to quite alot of people.

Who are these people?  Generally those who appreciate real strategy and tactics.  I know I personally have a raw feeling toward Sins online due to the impractical strategies and formations used online.  Massing LRM frigates, hiding capital ships, and frigate spamming battles are not my idea of fun.

I think what hinders Sins online (and many other RTS games) is that strategy and tactics or promised gameplay is stuck to playing the AI.  When you play humans, it turns into a completely different (and not altogether enjoyable) game.

Some people just enjoy losing themselves in a single player game, making up their own story, pacing, and fleet make-ups, rather than worrying about winning or losing or degrading themselves to using tactics they personally find stupid in order just to eek out a win.  And I don't just mean Sins is guilty of this, almost all RTS are, most notably being Company of Heros and their completely whacky-fun-time online strategies and tactics of MG rushing a base and sitting outside your HQ mowing down troops building for fifteen minutes.

Yep, strategy.  Online strategy that boggles the mind.

I think that you hit the nail on the head there Brenil.  Not long back I was part of EVE online which I had been playing for about 4 months and enjoying it, after a while I joined a player corp and it all started to go downhill big time.  I started to get pressured in to doing this, that and you must kill them - then I started to get called stupid for some of my decisions and after a while I thought 'is this all I have to look forward too when I play?' so I quit and never went back.

My point is that there is never any sort of respect online unless your amazing - I will try Sins online once I played hard alot, but the end result is that a human is not going to play like the AI and the odds are I will get beaten easily.  What happens after that point is the important bit, if I get the usual crap of 'you suck you noob' then frankly I cant be botherd to continue to play.  I dont have to win to play a game, but I do have to have a little respect to continue to play online.

I don't think it's "written" anywhere.  I've played in many balanced, competitive games and also games that were unbalanced.  There are  plenty of newer players online for similiarly situated players to play against.  Since this is a war strategy game, presumably the people who play it, even in single player, want to win the game and enjoy the process of becoming better players over time.  Also, losing is part of the enjoyment of winning; that is to say, you have to lose now and then or at least run the risk of losing in order for victories to be meaningful and for games to be interesting.

I think the "online feeling" you're referring to might be the intensity that you feel when you're playing against a competent and challenging opponent.  Shouldn't a war strategy game feel a little intesne?  Regarding the "strategic lessons"--why should you be able to make any moves you want--no matter how foolish--and win?  Does it not make sense that certain strategies and tactics might be more effective than others?

I'm having a difficult time understanding your concerns.  Are you concerned about getting rushed early on?  If being able to meet the enemy after you've had a chance to build up is important to you then I suggest playing large maps with relatively few people (for the size of the map).

What is impractical about massing LRMs (a damage-dealing ship)?  What fleet formations do you find impractical?   Why are the strategies and tactics needed to win online not legitimate tactics "for those who appreciate real strategy and tactics?"  If someone sends a capital ship that enhances his fleet into the middle of a battle, doesn't it make sense that the enemy might make it his first target and focus fire on it (hence the need to "hide" the capital ships).  The online game isn't merely about spamming out ships; you have to manage your resources and research and develpment in an online multiplayer game, too.  Also, you need to coordinate with your (human) allies and try to help them out if you can.

Sadly, we have to put up with occassional jerks in order to enjoy the joys of online multiplayer--such as having challenging opponents that don't play like mindless AI algorithms.  It's like that in the FPS game that I play, too.  I don't think the jerk factor in Sins is real high you're bound to run into a couple jerks here and there (as you are with all online multiplayer games).

Sins just isn't a game I get an urge to play competitively.  I've played lots of RTS', and played several I really liked at a serious competitive level (as in pretty decently ranked on ladder), but Sins...just doesn't do it for me.  It's a fun game to play leisurely with some comps, alone or with a friend.  But I have trouble taking it too competitively when a 2v2 takes over 90 minutes to play.

The second problem is that Sins lacks tactical depth.  Mindless spam rules the day with 1.05.  Hopefully 1.1 making carriers not suck will open up the unit variety a little more, but at this point the game desperately needs the expansion to inject some more variety into the game.  Improved defencive options from part 1 are a good step forward.  However the tech tree desperately needs a shake-up.  There are simply too many techs that aren't worthwhile in a 1v1 or small 2v2.  The civiliain tree in particular has many techs that are of little use outside of a 25+ planet game.  This leads to people always using the same build over and over in 'competitive' play in Sins.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the game and plan to pick up the expansion add-ons (star bases, woo!).  Ironclad has made a quality product here, and the modding community had provided some quality work.  But competitive online play?  It just doesn't suit the game.  I'll stick with Company of Heroes for tactical, online competitive play until something better comes along.

I certainly agree, if you wish to value a victory, you must know defeat.  That is fine.  I think the problem comes from when the actual premise of a game is purely to win or lose, then it becomes more important than actually having fun.  I know most RTS games I've played online in the past were never very 'fun' in of themselves so much as they were about winning online.  I catch that more in RTS more than any other genre.  That is not to say I haven't played RTS online that were fun and not about winning, several mods (DoTA being a prime example) for Starcraft and Warcraft were all about fun and not so much about winning.  Also, one of my favorite games of all-time was a quasi-RTS, Myth: The Fallen Lords, and I enjoyed that game online more than any other in the many years since, win or lose.

Sins on the other hand has a similar problem to most RTS, online it's all about the victory pursuit and being skillful, not just enjoying the game itself, whether you're godlike skillful or a lonely newbie.

It certainly makes sense that some strategies and tactics should be better than others, that goes without saying.  However, when said strategies and tactics begate real strategy and tactics (or indeed, even common sense), then you travel down a road many of us don't wish to tread, which is that of a strategy game that knows very little about strategy or logical force composition.

I would much rather field a balanced and 'realistic' fleet in Sins than using the pros have learned and do away with the logical (and fun premise of this setting) formation of battlefleets and naval tactics.

1)  Seeing 40-50 or more LRMs massing up and attacking a settlement without a capital ship or much support and having said force completely annihilate a balanced fleet with capital ships is obsurd, period.  It smacks of typical RTS mentality where you use the best and most questionably balanced unit to the maximium foresaking the setting you're playing in.  Need a good example?  Try this:

In the RTS game Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War, Winter Assault, a new faction was introduced, the Imperial Guard.  Anyone who knows the setting know that the Imperial Guard is a force of all 'normal' humans in a crazy galaxy of supermen, aliens, witches, daemons, and other assorted farout killing machines.  In this expansion, a few imbalances and bugs brought about a curious online 'strategy' of Imperial Guard players, where they would mass up and bayonete buildings to death.  And this worked.  Know what?  Everyone started rushing with Imperial Guardsmen and bayoneting buildings to dust.

I suppose that's an example of a practical strategy.  Maybe, but to me its friggin' retarded, in the same league that some 'fleet compositions' in Sins online is.

2)  Capital Ships should indeed be feared opponents to deal with seriously, but the recurring theme of focusing firing on them has made them nothing more than toy support.  This is a design issue that needs to be remedyed, because rightfully a capital ship shouldn't be manned by 5-10k personnel and massive weaponary, only to be skulking in the shadows of a line of frigates.

3)  I know full well what Sins is about and I actually do (and have) enjoyed playing it online.  When people use their brains instead of their instincts to win (at any stupid cost) and merely wish to play a space opera out with other people, its really, really, really, enjoyable.  Yet when someone wants to win at any cost, that's when this game takes a nose dive online and unfortunately, most RTS are the exact same way.  All of them have annoying 'strategies and tactics' and most of the time you'll find many people willing to forgo any attachment to the setting or logical force composition just to add another virtual notch to their egos.

In short, the problem with Sins online is that its more about winning and losing than actually having fun.  That's why many people chose to have their fun offline.  Sins needs more focus online than simply win totals and number of games played.  Just reading these forums, its like any other RTS forum, where people compare wins to loses in a number of games played and state that as their experience and reasons for butchering the setting they're playing in.

You kidding me?

I find just sitting and waiting for the numbers to count up is rather boring.  I do plenty of that with "Fast" settings.  The quickest fast game is going to take an hour. 

If you played a 5 hour game on fast with a heavy focus on reasearch there is NO CHANCE you would have all tech researched by the end of the game.

This game is no RTS.

If you rather go and play COH thats fine. Better than deciding in game to leave because its to demanding and spoil an entire game session.

This game is not aimed at the quick pace of RTS gaming. Rather its comparable to CIV or Alpha Centauri or Age of Wonders or a Master of Orion. Its a totally other sort of game than your traditional RTS. Its for players wich can play a match for a few days with breaks, maybe an hour or two a day, and thats not exactly aimed for mainstream RTS audience.

And to be honest for us strategy gamers its godsent. Because, belive it or not, in comparision to traditional turnbased strategy games its speeding up the gameplay to new heights and is very welcome change because of paralell gameplay (and not turn switching).

It can be a quick RTS as well in small maps, but as you mentioned some things work different in small maps. Because this game is more than just a RTS. If you abuse it to be one do not complain about missing a few things.

Whilst COH is a very good tactical (in combat) battlefield representation it misses the strategic element wich is present in Sins (overall strategy). This is because Sins is a hybrid of RTS and strategy genere. Your problem is simply you want it to be a RTS wich it isn't. Its not Homeworld.

And personally i do not think Sins has a problem with tactical depth. It uses the same elements wich a COH also uses: differnt units, special abilities, defensive buildings, etc. Pretty much the same mechanics in combat. Maybe a bit more automated - wich you can turn off. But that is neccesary because of its scope. Plus it has three factions instead of COHs two (well with the expansion it are kinda four for COH). It also has a vastly deeper techtree and choosing a route does not keep you from taking another route wich is different in COH. Selected choice IS selected choice and can't be changed.

This is of course only my personal opinion and i force nobody to agree.

I also enjoy RTS, particular COH, but the two games are simply of a different kind. The one you can fire up for a quick online skirmish and the other is the choice for batteling special friends wich are a bit deeper into strategy games than most people. Its not the same kind of game, and its not the same kind of audience.

Somebody said its a realtime representation of a turn based strategy game. Thats a very apropriate description i think. Its a hybrid, and a really good one. Like Dwarfen Fortress (wich is singleplayer only and ASCII).

So good that it confuses the hell out of RTS players.

Micromanagement won't win you battles, APM won't will you battles, fleet positioning won't win you battles, buildques won't win you battles. What will win you battles is how you manage your empire economy, technology and production and how and where you engage into battle. I disagree here.

And as far as i know a balanced fleet defeats a homogenous, if say pure Assilants meet a fleet of Halycons, Guardians and Illlums i know on what i would bet. So i am not with you on this one either.

Its not for mainstream audience and we might not be as numerous as the RTS players but we are very peristent. A main reason is that there is seldomly really progress in the genere and usually we stick to games for decades because we have to. And, seriously, this IS a great leap ahead. This replaces finally MOO2 for me, to give you an idea.

So even if you do not share my opinion you might understand my point of view now.

I recommend waiting DOW2 in your case.

Going to have to disagree, there.  The guy who digs in and micromanages his units (calling focus-fire targets, setting appropriate targets for abilities at appropriate times, managing scouts and such without the automatic features, and a myriad of other activities) is going to get a 'lot' more bang for his buck out of nearly anything he makes than the guy who doesn't.  Good micro may not be 'as' crucial here as it is in other games but someone who can't do it effectively is more than likely going to be handily beaten by someone who can. 

In any game, being able to get more done in less time can only work in a player's favor.

One of the big myths about this game is that it takes forever to play.  Most games are decided in under an hour-and-a-half and anything other than a multistar is decided within two-and-a-half hours and usually less than two hours.