Damocles66

I've tested replays. Still not working for regular sins. De-sync occurs after just a few minutes of multiplayer gaming. When will this be fixed?

Broken replays are just unacceptable. This is a really important part of the whole experience. Its basically like saved games not working. Why on earth did this very reproducable bug get through at any stage of developement? Ah well... I'll come back in 2011 when entrenchment comes out of beta.

Get this, install it, download the relevant pack for XP, burn it to a disk and restart your computer. It will recover all windows passwords for all accounts in about 3 - 5 minutes. No technical knowledge needed and its free. http://ophcrack.sourceforge.net/

Has anyone checked if 1.13 has fixed this?

I have been having a few issues with Impulse not being able to restore games properly. I perform the backup of the game as instructed in the forums, then as a test, I uninstall the game from my machine using Impulse, then do a restore using the blue impulse button. The game restores (although Impulse does generate an error after the restore completes and has to restart itself). After Impuse has restarted, I see that sins has an update available (1.13 because I

I have the same issues as Astax. Even following his suggestions to not change player perspective, the replay de-sync's in some manner right away. I have installed and uninstalled the entrenchment beta. Is it possible that this has broken my vanilla installation?

Such a silly work around. I wish stardock or IC or whoever is responsible for handling this part of the process would allow you to start either game without this mess. Seeing as its 'easy' for someone to manually do it, why can't it just be the default?

[quote]didn't blizzard go through like 5 plus versions of battle net before it was working. Don't rank on SD and IC when they are like on the 2nd version of ICO[/quote] Ahh... I assume you mean 'rag' and no, battle.net went through maybe 1 or 2 versions before they got it right and version 1.0 worked just fine, just not fully stably all the time. Starcraft was the first battle.net game and after a few months of refinement, that was solid enough to play over modems wi

The problem I think IC and stardock have faced with this game is that it was supposed to be another progression on the Galactic Civilizations theme. It was not meant to be a AAA title when first concepted. When it came to the crunch and the game was elevated to a higher level of expectation, there just wasn't enough manpower to do everything needed to make the game feel 'complete'. Hence you have the lack of a campaign or hosted online play. They did a go

I've been playing sins since launch and I have to say that barring all of the balancing, content, lack of campaign and other technical issues discussed, I have seen precious little concern over the actual ICO interface and specifically its lack of channel management. This is a major problem. Why is there no option to simply open as many channels as I need to in order to properly converse between rooms? I cannot imagine a reason why at least 2 channels (in

Hmm that kind of sucks, especially because this is a beta... I don't know why Ironclad wouldn't have used a separate directory to install the expansion so that you could play either version of the game. If it isn't separated at launch, they should expect some mighty disgruntled customers. Especially seeing as you aren't able to join regular sins games once you have the expansion installed (at least with the beta you can't at the moment).

[quote who="Simonster" reply="7" id="1711371"]Even if internet play doesen't quite work, you can still play against the AI. Compared with the Starcraft AI, this one is really 10 years ahead. It only cheats on the hardest (unfair) difficulty, so if you play on hard you have a non cheating, pretty competent opponent. What I like the most, it actually plays a bit like a human, not like in Starcraft, where it simply builds lots of units with cheated resources and then attacks. And if y

Is it possible to join a regular non-entrenchment game once you have installed the expansion? I have tried starting regular sins from impulse, but it just starts the game in expansion mode.

Haha, such negativity. But I guess its understandable, its a zero effort 'make work' bonus. A word of advice devs, if you're going to put a joke bonus in the game make it in the fashion of the cow level in Diablo or the cake in Portal. There has to be a reward, whether that be a *funny* joke or a reward, make it worth discovering.

Patching the game may not make them immediate profit, but seeing as a huge portion of Stardock's profits depend on fanbase following, I would say pleasing its paying customers is very important. The only way they can do that is with new games or with patches to their existing ones. The patching process is easier and cheaper than making an entirely new game (which most studios have to do at the same time anyway), so really this is the cheap and easy way for them to please their fans. <br

Awesome, about time the Malice issues were fixed. Thanks guys.

for the sanity of yourself and others, dont try to play anything more than a 4 player game on a large map. Once the number of ships grows large enough your connection just wont handle it. Dialup is really only an option for 2v2 or smaller.

[quote]If only they added looting or some sort of system.[/quote] UHHH... I hope thats a joke. Thats built into the game already, its called bounty. You put it on a guy, and other players get the bounty when they do damage to the person with the bounty on their heads.

[quote]Is this supposed to be joke? Alright, I get it. So the AI will fight you, and punish you for not paying attention. I would do that myself if I was fighting you. This only means a bigger chanlenge for us solo players. I think its fantastic![/quote] Time for a humor upgrade dude.

What about the SDC patch? I'm not sure if thats where other people are getting the patch. Is that causing problems? I know I couldn't join a game after I patched about an hour ago using the link you provide here.

Make sure you also change the map type to 'custom' when you go to start the game.

[quote]You see, Stardock, Ironclad, and Gas Powered Games are doing something that, to my knowledge, has never been done before. We three are combining our experiences and talents to build a unified multiplayer architecture.[/quote] I understand that its three separate companies doing this, but please, battle.net did this a long time ago. They may not have had clan support but how useful will that be when a simple clan tag in your name will suffice already? Not to say this p

[quote]This is where your posting changed from mildly reasonable to utter nonsense[/quote] Haha, yeah if you haven't figured it out already I'm given to exaggeration, but I have to say when I first saw screen shots of SINS I really thought, oh sweet its homeworld 3! But why are the graphics worse than 2? Then I read that it wasn't really a space rts and I forgave them. However, the fact remains that this game doesn't measure up to a game thats almost 5 years old visually. Sure,

No one with Vista running has posted any machine specs. Neither has the Original Poster. Its all pretty useless unless we know what hardware is being used. It's very simple; New hardware = Vista running to its maximum potential, older (last gen) hardware = Vista running like a pig most of the time compared to XP. Those who say Vista runs well are probably just not aware that XP runs their games better. But having said that, gamers are always early adopters, so you guys

[quote]Ironclad, and no, they're not new - you said yourself you have an older card that's not fully Vista compatible, and yet you're faulting the developer for the game not running as smooth as you assume it should, based purely on your perception of how it should run compared to Crysis I usually don't nitpick, but try to be a bit objective? A lot of it also depends on map size and the number of units in play, something that's not much of an issue in Crysis, for example[/quote] Ok ok f