What speed is your FSB running at, and what are the frequency, FSB ratio and timing settings for your memory? This could be some kind of memory / mobo bandwidth bottleneck. (Edit: You can find those out with Cpu-Z. Screenies of the CPU and Memory tabs would be great.)
[quote]These are the kind of attitudes that keep me away from Multiplayer. Do the multiplayer people forget about the singleplayer community? Any changes made to the multiplayer aspect effect the whole game, not just multiplayer. Does that mean that I'm a worse player because I only play with friends, or against the AI, or with friends against the AI? Does that mean I have no opinion worth listening to in such threads? Based on what you've said, my opinion is worthless because I'm not competi
[quote]btw, if you are thinking that if i disband the fleet and re-form it with the Progenitor selected first, that doesnt work.[/quote] I don't know if a new bug or something else prevents it from happening now, but you can designate the fleet leader by using tab before forming the fleet. 1) select the ships that form the fleet 2) tab to the ship you want to be fleet leader 3) create the fleet. Edit: Nevermind, Cykur already said this. Should've paid more atten
[quote]I've always thought that a more configurable game would reduce all the screaming people do about siege frigs, PJIs. carriers, length of games, and everything else. One would think this would have been implemented by the devs a long time ago, as it seems such an obvious solution to things.[/quote] Seconded. A toggle for research costs (cheap, normal, expensive) would be very welcome, so would an option for stronger hard counters. And victory conditions, of course, to deal with
[quote]Wow you guys are crazy if a starbase could hold enemy fleets and keep it from jumping away the game would jsut become who can capture the enemy fleet first. This would kill MP and remove any strategy what so ever. Not to mention no one would send a fleet out without 40 bombers to kill your starbase in under a minute, which would just make the games go on for hours and hours.[/quote] Agreed. I don't have much experience in Sins MP (hard to fit longish games of unpredic
Edit function is borked, so let me just add that basically I mean the same thing that was suggested by others here, but instead of a loader make it a separate MP exe.
[quote]How can a player without Entrenchment have a star base in the game if they don't have a game that is star base aware!!!![/quote] Separate MP exe that can access all installed assets and toggle them on and off at will. [quote]This means different values assigned to units (e.g. carrier build rates) and any number of things that would cause a desync.[/quote] Then create a single set of values for MP. It's just a balancing issue, and those will come u
One solution could be to simply allow everyone to join any game, but only allow them to use units and research "unlocked" by the expansion(s) they own. Kind of like Guild Wars. It might be problematic if subsequent expansions radically change game mechanics, but with some design effort it could work. Certainly a better alternative than fracturing an already tiny community.
[quote]The time it takes[/quote] This is key. Sins feels... stretched, for lack of a better word. Most of the time you're doing stuff only at half capacity. Combine this with the typical RTS pitfall of unlikely comebacks, and it's easy to see why Sins isn't a very appealing MP game - no one likes a drawn out losing game, and most competitively minded players don't much like drawn out victories either. Even so, I bought Entrenchment and maybe will give it a whirl someday. Hopef
[quote]The concept that The Sims and Spore are purely for casual players is a ridiculous misnomer.[/quote] Regarding Spore in a recent MTV interview , Will Wright himself said this: [quote]When I talked to Wright, I had played deep into the Space Stage, which I was enjoying. But I had seen complaints from hardcore game reviewers and message board posters that all of th
I never played many games of Sins online even though I'm a rather competitively minded player; multiplayer is typically what I end up doing with games. Maybe it would be useful to write down some thoughts - what happened and why. Sins MP was never (and to some degree still isn't) very accessible. We all know about the hosting problems and worse yet, perceived hosting problems in the form of false error messages. There was also the annoying joined/left channel -spam in the lobby. These k
Haeso explained things well, there's little to add here. [quote]Placing too much emphasis on dexterity must necessarily remove emphasis from the other, inherently strategic, aspects of the game.[/quote] Nope. The elements are not connected; this can be demonstrated by yet another cliched chess example. You can have a game of chess with five-minute turns or five-second turns, yet all strategic options remain the same. It can be argued that the faster game is too overwhelming to
[quote]Funny how strategic thinking somehow plateaus. If APM is deciding games over strategy, I think that the game fails to allow necessary strategic options. There are just too many startegic options in existance; there's no way "player A equals player B".[/quote] Strategic thinking does not "plateau", but in limited systems it does have diminishing returns as more time and effort is spent. It's only sensible to include time (and mechanical) limits for practical reasons, for example t
[quote]Apologies for the double post, but ability at micro isn't an indicator for strategic skill. By reducing the APM, it could be argued that there is more time for strategic planning, so the game is in effect no longer "dumbed down". Since Sins doesn't have the necessity for high APM (though you can doubtless play it as such), does that mean it's been dumbed down? Nope. Not for me, at any rate.[/quote] "Dumbed down" was used in a more generic sense, in the way that a demanding task i
[quote]What I enjoyed the most about Starcraft was that you had groups of 12, but could only queue up 5 in a factory. So instead of two barracks producing 12 marines, you had two barracks producing 10 marines, and you had to go back and remind them to build two more. That was some phenomenal design, let me tell you.[/quote] Queue length is pretty much irrelevant when you get competitive. More than a couple of units in a queue at once equals bad macro. I do agree that it's bad f
[quote]You can measure units sold, you can measure the player base/popularity, you can measure longevity, but you can't measure "best" and everyone's definition of it varies.[/quote] Pretty much universal critical acclaim (contemporary and retrospect), the only RTS to be included in top competitive tournaments continuously since its release, best selling PC game in its release year, 10 million copies sold overall, still the most played online RTS. I agree that the definition of best is
No one is saying Starcraft is teh best evar or anything like that, it's just bizarre that people are calling it a horrible game while it really is not by any objective measure. It's like calling The Godfather a bad movie just because you don't like crime films. It's fine to dislike the game from a personal standpoint, but that's just an opinion with pretty much zero support from facts. For example, I thought Bioshock was a rather mediocre game - it was far too easy on any setting and ga
[quote]I'm sorry to say that I have read very few objective and intelligent posts that criticize SC or WOW.[/quote] I agree. SC and WoW are games that have withstood the test of time; they're successful by just about any impersonal definition. Calling them bad games really isn't rational any more. While it's true that Blizzard isn't a very innovative company, they're great at refining and polishing concepts. Their games have flair and personality. Their support is unrival
[quote]I love all the people who say "If you don't play the way I want you to, don't play online" like they have some kind of authority.[/quote] It's pretty safe to assume that most players on a team, even in a pickup game, would rather like to win than lose. Playing in a way that helps the opposing team (heavy turtling for example) is worse than just sticking to your preferred style, it goes against the spirit of the game and could be considered griefing. Just to clarify, I d
Annoying font and bad grammar notwithstanding, I agree with the OP. Playing your own (suboptimal) way in a [B]team game[/B] without clearing it first with your teammates is just selfish. Sins happens to be a game in which economy upgrades take a particularly long time to pay off, and leaving your teammates to take the brunt of the offensive while you're playing simcity is inconsiderate at best, outright griefing at worst. The same applies to building defenses. A repair platfor
[quote]Once the shield is gone the mitigation is gone and the enemy ship takes full amount of damage[/quote] Incorrect. Damage mitigation remains in effect regardless of shield status. Thus, all races benefit from it roughly equally and phase missiles are pretty much universally useful, since they ignore mitigation when they phase.
Yep, I'm a customer of TS, and complaints have been voiced by me and others. The issue has even made national news here in Finland and other Nordic countries. [HR] Statements by Cogent CEO Dave Schaffer cite a breach of contract by TeliaSonera. TS allegedly failed to provide adequate connectivity points for the exchange of information between the two companies’ customers, resulting in slow connections and delays to Cogent's European customers. This is allegedly because TS didn't like Cog
Due to a peering slugfest between Cogent Communications and TeliaSonera, TeliaSonera customers have been cut off from Cogent's network since March 14th. The Stardock network (which includes ICO servers) is under Cogent, so multiplayer Sins has been impossible for these past two weeks for TeliaSonera customers (proxy servers are too slow and unreliable.) Of course, this also affects all other Stardock games and applications. [HR] TeliaSonera is one of the largest networks in Europe; this peerin
It did not fix the text issue for me, still getting slowdowns like before. Can anyone confirm this?
[quote]-Fixed sometimes drastic frame rate drop when chat messages are displayed.[/quote] I still get framerate drops from chat messages. Also, ICO lobby drops framerate when it's full of text, but not when it's empty or when viewing a screen without much text (player settings for example.) Basically it's just like it used to be. So what gives? Is there any chance that the game did not update some parts correctly? (probably not, since 1.03 ICO games work fine.)
