varis2000

[quote who="Shadow_of_Light" reply="13" id="1998467"] yes you should upgrade your homeowlrd civilain infrastructure first, it pays off rly well, when population hits max you'll have an increase of olmost 4 cr a second, thats pays itself off pretty fast having so much in start has no practical use, since you probably wont hae planets fast enough to spend on civilain upgrades, so paying for your homeworld civilain infrastrucutre in an extra investment wich is bought first [/quot

1. Play with somebody who is good and save the replay, then watch what he/she was doing. Probably should do this myself :-)

I want to figure out a good textbook approach - how important each step is and what is usually the optimum sequence. Thus I didn't want to go into much speculation about situational details, so I just gave a typical scenario of planets - it's just a "suppose that" item, the planets listed first are closest, and the assumption is that the desert planet is the farthest, otherwise I'd colonize it just after the 1st asteroid. Should I research the 1st terran population a bit earlier? I ta

https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/334553

Let's say you have a bunch of planets... like a string of roid, ice, roid, volcanic, desert, that would be all easy to colonize, and you're planning to go econ boom with TEC. What would be an efficient order to do things? 1. Start with your favourite cap... then the colony ship and some cobalt frigs 2. Colonize roid and ice, upgrade civ-inf to cap 3. Research the 2 steps of the first metal harvesting tech 4. Colonize roid and volcanic, max inf on planets, upgra

Bumped into EEF tonight, apparently that clan is alive and kicking. They weren't aware of any ladder ideas, I take it they don't go to these forums, being mostly German and stuff. Somebody has to talk with them a bit more :)

It depends on where on your comfort envelope you are - if it's top of your range one mistake could be disastrous. To get specific advice, you need to tell us about your specific conditions - do you take 1 or more cpu, what level, which map, how do your games play etc. Big fleet is essential, you need bigger than your opponent. So don't let your ships die, let them run rather. And big is not enough, spamming a single unit can maybe work against cpu but if your fleet is all carriers and

What Shawn suggests could be quite nice mechanics, like them. Maybe some research items for galactic espionage, so you get more reliable and more accurate information about where the other team is going? Trader wars, corruption... keep the ideas coming, they could use a few for the coming expansions! :) Of course, there are game balance issues. If you give the experienced players more ways to dominate the weaker ones, even the middle games will be over faster! But I would give the fin

I wager many gamers are put off by the length of typical Sins games, we get comments like "plays the speed of molasses". This hinders the multiplayer scene as well, because players perceive that games can drag on for hours and hours. IC should give us an option to make games shorter - and there are ways to do this so the boring parts are cropped out and the most fun parts remain. One option is to shorten the game in the beginning. After all it's mostly the basic expansion stu

So get a few lvl6 marzas and anything that is ever going to touch you again is strikecraft?

Yes, somebody has to make a bit of noise about Sins being an exciting multiplayer game. Promotion by IC/SD can go a long way in this. But somehow one needs to get around the impression that Sins is just another space 4x game, because the timescale approaches that... and space 4x hasn't really been a multiplayer success, just because of the time scale. About co-op, perhaps it should be a bit more canonized. It's a valid and fairly common activity - I've played at least 3 co-op games ov

Oh, check that. Why's there no updated package available? :-/

It's a simple .zip so I put them in the Galaxy folder myself. They don't show up in small, medium, large or custom...

I think Entrenchment is the big chance if IC and the community play it right. Sins got excellent reviews, it already sold a big number of copies, and apparently it's the IC/Stardock line to keep their games alive for YEARS with expansions, patches and the like. And maybe that strategy works. There is always a little rush of new/old players when a new expansion comes out. I dunno if there are now more people playing because of the holidays (I am) but comparing with the numbers Ke5strel

One can certainly understand if feathers get fluffed in that situation... good that you didn't develop a flame war ingame :D From the PoV of a noob, it is good if there is someone who wants to organize the team and tells us what to do. Of course, we don't always follow the advice ;) Leadership is a challenging skill and you need to establish credibility at least. If you have shown that you are a good player and have a clue about the game, then people who know you are more likely to fo

Yep it's an important part of the strategy. If you build your military labs at a front line planet, and the enemy comes over to raze them, you no longer can build your best units. You need to expand your empire to have more room for everything (planets tend to get filled with trade ports and culture centers too, at least with advent). On small maps it might be difficult to max out research trees or build big fleets, because of logistic slots not just the time span.

The latest of course? There are many people playing Entrenchment beta as well - if you preorder that, you can copy your regular install over first, so you can play both...

Is giving a big bunch of resources a good idea? In the end everybody would have to spend most of that into building fleets for rushing/countering rushing. Not the research it would be intended to, but maybe that's good... the research could come gradually just like in the regular format. How much rushing should the format tolerate/require? I gather there are very different players for this game: some can take 1 hour at most, others insist on BIG games that take at least 4 hou

Any ideas? Has Sins map format changed?

What kind of patterns does team placement follow on Sins maps? Is it sequential or alternating? Let's say you have a 2v2 map, with players 1, 2, 3 and 4. Which players will be placed next to each other - 1 and 3; 2 and 4? or 1 and 2; 3 and 4?

No problem, we're getting by as you say ;) And yep I can see the expansion changing quite a few things.

I thought of that briefly, and it seems to have its problems. For one, it would take long before a ladder game is completed. It could work for 1v1 games, but getting a group of more than 2 players online at the same time is a significant challenge, not to mention getting it together again - especially if one side of the game is about to lose it!

I think there's a few preconditions that need to be met before a Sins ladder can be viable. One of them is game length - this should preferably be below 1 hour (~equal to HW2). Many people don't have a patience longer than this, especially if it's a game with relative strangers and there is no guarantee that it's really enjoyable. There's also many people who can't commit daily more than 1 hour anyway. Developing a good format for competitive play is essential if you want to enjoy any, though

You could have just edited it to "*REMOVED*" :)

So the process is that people submit standardized replies on this thread to get themselves recognized, then you check with someone (maybe receive PMs) who played the player who submitted the reply, to verify they roughly have the skills they profess?