Well Klassen you aren't entirely incorrect, rather far from it.  Its true that many of the diplomatic features really shine in FFAs, but there are still many features that make a rather large impact on locked team games, more specifically pacts. In team games, while the early game remains very similar to the old way (with the obvious exceptions of researched feed and increase speeds) pacts really come into play in the mid to late game, and can have a huge impact on the outcome. Quar may have gotten one thing right about his statement above, TEC supply pact is somewhat broken (2 players get 1000 tax free supply or something like that). Perhaps not quite to the level of say Returning Armada back in the day, but somewhere kinda close. But thats nothing a balance patch can't fix, and lets face it, balance it pretty good these days. I didn't think Diplomacy would change MP gameplay that much, but I'm seeing pacts becoming a huge deal.

I think that what it really does is to improve the single player game by making unlocked teams games feasible again.  In the past the only option for your 1 man against 9 AI FFA games was to lock the teams so that the AI wouldn't gang up on you.  I'm not sure how it will play out online as far as unlocked FFAs goes.  Unlocked FFA has never been real popular though I don't see why it shouldn't be tried in Diplomacy.

The Diplomacy stuff works OK for team games but I think we're really going to need some custom maps designed specifically for Diplomacy, ones where a few players are guaranteed to start out in eco slots or non-rush maps.

I think most of the games will continue to remain locked teams, team games.  I really don't foresee unlocked FFA becoming any more popular know than they were before for the same reasons they weren't really popular before--no one wants to get stabbed in the back and friends can team up with one another against lone players.

Do I smell another custom map pack coming?  

Well the smack down is apparently on. Someone finally created a Go play Entrenchment game in diplomacy...

I have to at least fix one of my maps, Death-a-Whirl, because it was, embarassingly, botched up.  I'm not sure what exactly would be good for Diplomacy yet in terms of whether or not players need more or fewer planets.

That wasn't me.

I recall one of the maps in Darvins had two distinct sides, a 5v5, where there were a few nice chokepoints dividing both sides. Something like that would probably be good for Diplomacy. If I can get galaxy forge working again I can work on some new maps, and perhaps with a little help from Darvin we can get a big map pack out and try and distribute the crap out of it.

I have a number of maps like that.

• Asteroid Belt
• Gateway to Paradie
• Ring of Risk
• Red Crush
• The Mosh Pit
• Warring Systems

I think they would be good for Diplomacy.

Oh yeah, Red crush was the one I was thinking of. That'd make a great Diplo map. I have a few of my own that would work pretty good to.

Well I'll say this tot he poeple who think diplomacy doe snot bring much for MP players. Your wrong, it brings alot to MP play even on locked teams and it fixes anoying issues such as insane early game feeding that has been gixing MP Entrnehcment games for a while now. It also makes the pirates a worthy option to turn on unlike entrnechemnt witch depends the depth of the statergies you can use.

All the pacts are extremly usefull as well for MP and can easily turn the tide of the figth in the favor of the side with the most pacts.

Envoy crusers can be used to substantialy boost each other.

I would personaly say they are more benefits in diplomacy for MP play then they were in entrenchment honestly. The only part of diplomacy that is only usefull for SP is the diplomacy system it's self of forging aliances and gain positive points and negative poits of relationship. That is the onyl thing you will not be using in MP.

KlassenT kind of has it.  Diplomacy features were not meant for locked 5v5 games.  Sins in general was never meant for locked 5v5 games.  If you are in the mindset that 5v5 is the only way to play, then yes there is no reason to use Diplomacy.  Pacts, envoys, and pirate missions have MUCH more of impact on 2v2 and 3v3 where all players need to think about economy instead of just one or two people feeding the spammers.  Sins was not meant to work this way, which is why the devs did not focus on features that would appeal to 5v5 players.

As for 'Diplomacy ruining online', the community is dividing itself here by stomping its feet and refusing to move on.  If you are happy with Entrenchment 5v5s, go ahead and enjoy it.  But you are not going to get any new blood.  New players are not going to downgrade to Entrenchment to play with the jaded veterens, they will just play amongst themselves or go back to single player or TCP/IP.  If you think otherwise, you will be in for a surprise as the Entrenchment lobby just shrinks and shrinks.

I am working on a biggish map based on a classic scifi board game (Imperium) and Diplomacy and Entrenchment came along in the middle of it--so I have had to redefine it.

I like the changes in Diplomacy with the smarter AI particularly and welcome fierce pirates (though I think the recent nerf was a good call).

SINS really has no endpoint but is simply a long death battle with the exception of the map design capability.  If well thought out, the map is the game strategy.  Instead of using only the SINS engine like an arcade level game, add the strategy and playability to it with creative map designs. 

I am working on one now based on a classic scifi board game (Imperium) and it will use features of galaxy map to drive the play there.  Diplomacy allows me to ad another faction into the mix  and still retain the strategy and combat features.  It's all in what you do with it.

I Personally love the encouragement to "go play diplomacy".  Sends a strong message of support and unity.  Dirty, your sensibilites are too sensitive if you are offended.  I think you must have been on the rag last night

I will say this:

I've noticed a couple of things since playing my first few games of Diplomacy starting 2 nights ago, don't know if they are trends yet, but nonetheless, here goes:

With the release of Trinity, I have noticed a lot of new players with little or no previous experience in Entrench or Vanilla coming on lately.  These players in general are not biased or otherwise close minded like so many "experts" here, and they are eager to embrace the game.  Also, these new players seem to be increasing, and as long as we embrace them in turn, they will provide a much needed influx of new blood for the community as a whole, and will be measured by a "head count" of growth numbers, instead of a "body count" of those lost to division among the expansions.  I feel the argument that "sins is dying", or that, "I just want to play it safe in Entrenchment because we can't risk dividing the player base" is ridiculous.  The growing number of new players, and the willingness of most veteran players to migrate/advance to Diplomacy is evidence of that.  

Being that I've only played like 3 or 4 multiplayer games, I am not one of the experts, but I can say that so far, compared to Entrenchment, Diplomcacy offers substantial improvements overall.  The pacts alone are a tremendous vehicle for implementing game strategies.  The course of events leading up to and following the diplomatic aspects lend an entirely new flavor to the "business as usual" tactics of multiplayer games.  The increased speed and relative dynamics of the trade pacts it brings to the game surpass any single benefit compared to Entrenchment.  Because of this, you not only can and should perform true to your initial role (depending on random map placement) as a front line, or support effort, but you have the opportunity to expand and solidify your pacts over the course of the game. 

The bugs and fixes will come, but for now Diplomacy is now far and away superior to entrenchment.  It's what Sins could have been all along.

And all you fellas that just want to argue for the sake of arguing are just being iconoclast in a devils advocate sort of way;  Kharma, I'm afraid, would argue with a fencepost, doesn't matter the issue.  Quar has a needle-saturated voodoo doll of KL3MZ on his mantle, and like those that are resistant to change and stuck in their ways, will find something to complain about regardless.  I think attitude is everything, and when I play, I want to maximize my enjoyment.  Diplomacy has brought a great deal of excitement to the table towards that enjoyment.

Try it, you'll like it!

Well maybe so, ya damn fencepost!    But at the end of the day, I will evaluate a good argument for what it's worth.  If Diplo ends up with higher player counts than Entrench had, that's good enough for me.  (Still don't like increased speed options, but whatever....)

I got bored of how everygame is almost the same thing. Didn't even play a game of diplo yet

Diplomacy definately brings a near fear for being out in the open (suicide spot) on the big 5v5 maps.  When you get 2v1'd now its just you, with no finacial backup from your allies comming with the next 5 minutes...  Diplomacy brings about encourages new strategies, it rendes some old ones obsolete, and it brings some ancient ones back to life.  I'm hoping it is as Protoplasm says, and that we get a swarm of new players to join in on sins so that we may see what sort of inventive stratigies they have to offer.

I can tell you that I bought Trinity (Preorder for March 2nd release) and will be playing on Diplomacy.

So if you want to play with newer players who are noobs, you should go Diplomacy.

Just don't stack the teams guys. It's a good way to get rid of new players.