Nearly a dozen games?  Were you limp afterwards?

lol double post. i managed to mow my yard to

just trying to get the word out that the communty is no longer shrinking and is in fact growing (hopefully at an exponentail rate )

lol if you dont like the game dont play it. diplomacy is far better for multiplayer it adds so much to the game. not to mentioned the faster speeds

I was under the impression you did not like diplomacy either, whip.  I seem to recall at least a couple of posts from you advocating going back to entrenchment.  I am very meh about diplomacy in general.  It absolutely screws anyone in the suicide slot unless they are surrounded by poorly skilled players.  Pacts are ok but advent are screwed in that too.  I find myself going for them only infrequently.  The faster speeds do not impress me but then I was never a big fan of opening the floodgates of resources because it takes some skill with managing fewer resources out and the large infrastructure penalties hurt if you are trying to rebuild.

 

[_]-Greyfox

I think Diplomacy is OK but not amazing nor all that superior to Entrenchment.  I don't really have anything against Diplomacy, but early on I was concerned that it would split up the community.  And it did.  It correlates with a precipitous drop in online multiplayer player counts and activity.

I was talking to some noobies in the lobby and they were like, "...why would they not just upgrade the entire game with Diplomacy?  Why even leave an option to play Entrenchment?"

The same questions I asked when vanilla went to Entrenchment.  The point, however, is that saying Diplomacy is just "OK" is like saying sins in general is just "OK".  Diplomacy provided for the multiplayer community what no previous version had.  Speed, mitigating resource whoring, and allied technology benefits.  And the pirates are better if you use 'em.  For single players that say they don't care about speed because they like to be able to take a bong hit between missions that's fine, set it to slow and go get some cereal to eat out of the box while your at it.  For those that say they like Entrenchment better, they are fence-posting.  Maybe they don't want to spend or have the 10 bones to get it.

There is no controversy whatsoever that Diplomacy represents the best of breed.  To question or declare otherwise is foolish.

 

Slackah, it could be argued that Diplomacy is inferior to Entrenchment in terms of starting position bias.  That is to say, players' relative starting positions might have a greater impact on the outcome than in Entrenchment.  If someone starts out in a suicide spot, they could get gangbanged before they can receive any feed.  (So, the team without a player in a suicide spot now has a huge advantage.)  Also, if one team has a player in an eco slot and the other does not, the increased ease for that single eco player to be able to form pacts is another large advantage for the team.

I'm not saying that I think Diplomacy is inferior to Entrenchment.  Rather, I'm just pointing out two potential issues it raises based on how the game is played online (random maps and not custom maps).  It could also be argued that those two factors I mention balance one another--the team with a player in a suicide spot is liable to have someone in an eco spot.  Personally, I like Diplomacy.  I just don't think it's a major improvement over Entrenchment for online multiplayer.

diplomacy screwed up the game real bad, i have lots of xp in entrench and

from the 25 games i played it seems carriers are buffed up way too much. all sb are virtually unstoppable, LF are useless,

and the faster start and speeds make it a action game, not a stragety game... its spam spam spam, no time for micro or strats. What they did is dumb down the game making it for the dumber. now its pretty much like a simcity arcade game.

Same goes for the attackers, they can't get feed early either, and a competent "Entrencher" can perform the refugee flight, or turtle same as Entrenchment, but from my experience the increased speed allows a more contiguous flow in order to facilitate either. But you are right about the map placement, but this goes for any version, random map phucking can adversely determine the outcome.You, sir are way off base.  There is nothing like a clickfest spam-o-thon to sins no matter which version you play.Obviously?  So, if Diplomacy never came out, we wouldn't be having this discussion?  What about if Entrenchment never came out and it went straight to Diplomacy?  If one is sentimental or nostalgic about the "good ole days of Entrenchment", don't put down Diplomacy.The reasons you give for saying Diplomacy is not an improvement Greyfox are emotional.  I miss the camaraderie and fellowship of higher player counts, yes, but I'm not going to blame Diplomacy altogether.  For what it is, it is light years ahead of Entrenchment in it's scope and playability.  OK, maybe sound-waves ahead, but it is still the best sins version.  You can't just unfavorably compare it because of some flimsy parallel to advanced game flow or especially because of a random map placements.  Saying Diplomacy is flawed and that it's the death of Sins is like saying faster computers cost too much money so they are not for me, and everyone should just keep their old ones.   It's short sighted and irresponsible.

I think Slackah has a point about feeding, which I hadn't thought of--the two guys on either side of the guy in the suicide spot can't get feed either.

I don't blame Diplomacy for the Skinatras; I'm pretty sure that's an issue in all three versions now.

man from space...lol what are you smoking man? (i want some )

LF are stronger now they than we have ever been (though thats not saying much) and carrier caps have been buffed for BOTH entrench and diplo

and to all those who cry rivers over OMG SPAM! this is an rts and in all rts spam is indeed a part of the game

if you lose to spam however that simply means you are not as good as the one who is apamming because all you need to do is scout and have a counter ready

starbases arnt any stronger than in entrench and LF have ALWAYS BEEN USELESS

I obviously did not boycott it since I have already bought it.  I do play some games on diplomacy if there are games available(which is to say not often since it averages so few players nowadays).  That does not mean I like diplomacy as an expansion.  I think the implementation of diplomacy has fallen short of what it could have been.  Not even looking at how multiplayer dropped off a cliff after it came out, it does not add much to the average ICO multiplayer game.  You can be a cheerleader for it all you like but it doesn't make me like it any better or think its just the best thing to happen to sins.  My polished turd remark was more to you saying that just because its new and shiny means its a great thing and not necessarily aimed directly at diplomacy.  For those that play a lot of single player, I am sure its a fine thing.  For me that plays multiplayer only, it falls flat.  I think you confuse the meaning of sour grapes.  Sour grapes means that since I can't get to said grapes they must be sour.  I have had these proverbial grapes already and find that I could do without them. 

 

[_]-Greyfox

ICO is currently growing. fact