My problem with this game isn't necessarily the time it takes, it's what happens in that time... You either slowly win, or slowly lose; comebacks in this game seem very rare. That is what I hate about this game, why make us wait 3 hours for a loss when you can pretty much predict who is going to win in the first hour?
I must admit that this game is far too linear. You either slowly win, or slowly lose; that is what makes this a fairly boring game. In RTS' like Company of Heroes you could be losing the first half of the game, then come back and destroy the enemy in the second half. There isn't much of that in this game, so why should players stay in the game another 2 hours if they are just going to get "slowly" destroyed?
I've had this little problem happen in 2 multiplayer/online games, a 2vs2 and a 4vs4: The game plays fine then I jump to another star system and all the sound FX from the game die! The music still works, but everything else (the warning voices, battle sounds, etc.) is gone. It happened to almost every player in these games and I am hoping that it doesn't become a regular problem. Has this been happening to anyone else?
Does it come with rubber nipples shaped like a ship? :d Just playin'!
Maybe a 'pursue' option for all ships can be added? BTW, thanks for that sweet link... [quote]cool: http://youtube.com/watch?v=KQ9yWrFzk9w.[/quote]
Lets hope they don't have to "roll back the odometer" on us.
Seems everyone has the same opinion on the battles during the matches... LET SHIPS MOVE WHILE THEY FIGHT!!! The videos I have seen so far make the fights look a bit too much like playing chess with starships rather than a 4X/RTS game. More strategy, advantages/disadvantages, etc. could be added by doing this. If all the battles are "stand still and shoot" I may have to cancel my pre-order at Gamespot. :(
It wouldn't let me edit the primary message in that last post. [quote] theres a thing called an edit..... [/quote] I tried, no reason to be rude. ;p
Oooops, messed up the link on my last post. Check out this sweet little battle that was posted on IGN today: [link="http://media.pc.ign.com/media/775/775249/vids_1.html"]http://media.pc.ign.com/media/775/775249/vids_1.html[/link]
Who can blame the devs, they are 25 days away from releasing the game, LOL! I just thought this video would be nice for people who are as interested in this game as I am. The combat vid on IGN is a nice little example of the 'real' game! ;) [link="http://media.pc.ign.com/media/775/775249/vids_1.html"]http://media.pc.ign.com/media/775/775249/vids_1.html[/link]
A nice little Sins combat vid was put on IGN today. This game looks sweet! https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/?g=newpost&forumid=402
SC, FA, CoH, Starcraft, Homeworld, Homeworld: Cata all combined = The Perfect RTS :CONGRAT:
Once again, this game sounds great! Another question for those who might know... Can you set up defenses directly on the planets or moons? Example: Like in Star Wars(The Empire Strikes Back) where you set up an Ion Cannon to fire on enemy ships from the planet. Maybe even a Shield Generator that can protect orbiting defensive structures.
At the end of my last post I was sad to hear that the units' position in their environment has no effect on the units. The question was: "Do the units gain advantages/disadvantages by using the environment around them? Example: A capitol ship(CP) powers down and hides behind a moon. Several smaller enemy ships attempt to attack a defensive structure on the other side of the moon. The CP powers up, the smaller enemy ships detect it but have time to take cover or flee before
I almost forgot to throw out my question... Do the units gain advantages/disadvantages by using the environment around them? Example: A capitol ship(CP) powers down and hides behind a moon. Several smaller enemy ships attempt to attack a defensive structure on the other side of the moon. The CP powers up, the smaller enemy ships detect it but have time to take cover or flee before the CP can complete its power up process. The enemy player doesnt bother to move the smaller ships
[quote] Supreme Commander failed because of the massive amounts of micro needed for each and every game, as well as the time requirements. (I have the game and the expansion) The base building was a massive and monotonous undertaking, even with the "prebuilt" base option where you could save your base layout. You had to have one for practically each map, otherwise the terrain would mess you up. [/quote] Very true, and some players could never grasp the controls,
[quote]Who cares if the game doesn't get the largest community compared to the other clickfests, what matters is the community is strong and the game is fun. [/quote] Although a small, strong community is nice; a big, strong community is always better! While both types of communities have thier strengths and weaknesses it seems that the big community helps guarantee better support, more upgrades, draws in more new players, and sustains more longevity than a small community. So
Sounds good so far! How long does it take an advanced RTS player, like me, to learn the mechanics. How long for a new RTS player?
Or go another route... a half MMO and half RTS. You must pick a race and defend that race. Have 'unexpected' attacks from things, like Pirates taking a system, that everyone must work together on to defeat. Just another idea! :LOL:
[quote] Though the amount of time games take might drive away some elements of competition, I think this game will always retain a modest player base(sure it wont be Warcraft or Starcraft), but it will also be a pretty robust community. [/quote] Nothing will ever be Warcraft or Starcraft again, but a lot of that has to do with the time when they were released and the fact that these games were great in their time and had time to build up massive c
I wish I had the Beta version so I could offer up more. Too bad for me :SNIFF!: but I'd be happy to take a Beta spot and build a fansite for this game :CONGRAT: I'll throw in a few tips if anyone wants to stick them into this great looking game: - Company of Heroes has held a strong crowd and has a lot of great features that almost always keep the game moving (rushing, tech levels, defensive/offensive balance, choice of special abilities for each army, great interaction b/w
Saw the comment on IGN.com and Gamespy.com (pretty much the same company) I understand that a game like this probably wont be perfect when it hits the shelves, but it's not just the Lobby problems that concern me. Like I said in my first post, I'm worried more about buying the game, liking it, but having nobody to play it with. I want to know what is going to keep the players coming back. It looks a lot like a standard RTS hyped up in 4X; but I dont see a lot of 'genuine' or 'c
[font="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"][/font][size="2"][/size][color="#0000FF"][/color]While I love RTS games and the Homeworld series, this game looks like another failure on the rise. I hope that the creators have an idea of how they plan to pull players into this game and keep them around. Complaints and doubt about the Lobby area are already coming out at all the gaming websites I know it will take more than 'new maps, new units, and a great new system of strategy gameplay' to keep peopl
