DarkMadMax DarkMadMax

Biggest game flaw and MP breaker?

▼

Biggest game flaw and MP breaker?

from Sins Forums

Well I bought the game, but after playing around, beating 3 teamed hard AI 1vs3,  20 MP matches (in which I was undefeated in 1 vs1), it seems like I probably should not have bought it . Well at least ironclad is a small dev which distributes online without copy protection   so money is not lost ( I support devs like that in principle) .

So what is wrong? -Simple game is MP only basically and in MP is the average game time.  A good ,fast 1vs1 on small map takes anywhere from 2 to 3-4 hours.  Before you even see enemy at all a good 10-15 minutes passes, and first battles  do not happen until 1-1.5 hour mark. This is outrageously slow. Even on the tiniest map  (e.g. point blank) it takes up  to 20 -30 minutes- and that is a game with 0 development, research and expansion. With a medium map...-forget it  , you not gonna finish it at all .Most medium team/ffa games player quit at about 3nd-3d hour and there is no sight of game end at that point.

And proof that this concept is failing is declining MP population .It is been only a few weeks since release and lobby population already halved ( form 500+ to200-300).

 Compare that to a game like Supreme Commander (especially FA expansion) - 1 vs 1 typically is under 30 minutes and epic, big battles with highest tier units  rarely last past 1 hour. And this 1 hour is one intense heated action, not slow pointless build up like in SoaSe.

I like the concept, I like races, I like game play, but the pace is just way too glacial imho. I do not know if it is possible to fix it  but imho devs should seriously consider drastically revamping game to speed up multi player  pace.

A lot of things imho needs to happen -faster research and build time,faster combat and travel. Better conditions to win (very often it is pointless to continue after you eliminated opponent fleet- he has no chance to recover, but you still have to wipe their colonies and that takes very long time ). All of this of course would take complete rebalance of most aspects of the game and it is sad that this didnt happen in beta.

 

 

 

68,248 views 41 replies
Reply #26 from Sins Forums Top
1: You're playing the wrong game. Sins is more of a real-time 4x game, NOT a twitch RTS ripping off 4x. I can say this with confidence because it's clear the developers have much more experience with turn-based games than RTSs if you look at their past works. Pure 4x games are notorious for taking several sessions of several hours each to complete. Sins is by far the fastest 4x game ever if I can finish a game in a few hours.

You're just looking for the wrong game.

2: I play 10 player open team games almost exclusively and they rarely last more than 4 hours. You are exaggerating how long games take, playing slowly, or not playing on the fastest settings. Get more experience and turn up the speed, or just stop lying to try and make a point you clearly already knew no one agreed with when you started writing this thread.

3: Sins still has about 2-4x as many players as Supreme Commander. Though I really like SupCom, it usually has somewhere between 50-100 players at any given time.

4: ????

5: PROFIT!
Reply #27 from Sins Forums Top
Though I really like SupCom, it usually has somewhere between 50-100 players at any given time.


Right now, at 10:30 pm CST on a Thursday night (I would imagine this would be a low time), there are around 370 people on SupCom, 237 of which are in games
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #28 from Sins Forums Top
To: OP


http://ve3d.ign.com/videos/play/19334/PC/Sins-of-a-Solar-Empire


As Designed.
Reply #29 from Sins Forums Top
Theres threads like this on every game's forum.

Criticism is nice, but theres no such thing as a game-breaker so long as people are able to play the game.
Reply #30 from Sins Forums Top
Sins is a great game, RTS or otherwise, but I think a lot of people who bought it are a bit delusional about what they've gotten themselves into. In any real-time game, the fight between two opponents of equal intelligence will ALWAYS go to the player who issues more orders. If my ideas are as strategically sound as yours, regardless of whether the game plays out in 20 minutes or 10 hours, I will beat you if I do more. More maneuvers, more builds, more everything. If the user action counter actually worked, I could almost guarantee that the winner of most games, regardless of speed, was the one with more actions; it takes real genious to beat someone who is building and expanding more than you. It doesn't have to be a "clickfest", but if you think that it's possible to play any real-time game, on any scale, without the need for quick decision-making and a willingness to be constantly doing something, no change in game speed will allow you to win.
Reply #31 from Sins Forums Top
Rise is a fast-paced game, yes, but it's also quite a lot deeper than Sins.

Man, what are you smoking??? It's "deep" only in the sense there is more stages. Might as well talk about Empire Earth II if that's the kind of mindless "deep" game play people want. I think there will always be some fast-twitch RTS players that don't "get" Sins. Speed does not equate to strategy.


Let's see. Rise has 22 different unit types as opposed to SoaSE's 10 (or 12 if you include combat utility vessels separately.) The combat system, while simple, is still more varied than in Sins - it has directional (flank and rear) attacks, formations, variable targeting priorities, garrisoning and entrenchment. There are meaningful infiltration and sabotage units (no, Timed Explosives doesn't count.)

Rise has more terrain features (location of resources actually matters), and placement of cities and buildings needs more thought. The economy is more varied, and needs more consideration than the simple payoff speed in Sins. Racing for Wonders adds spice to strategies.

Those are the primary differences in content. I purposely didn't mention normal buildings or individual units, because those are really just fluff and arguably not that important to gameplay.

Pacing and the tech trees are special cases. While it could be argued that the tech trees in both games are just incremental upgrades at heart with occasional new units and buildings, the "era" system in Rise results in far superior pacing. Each new era adds some new features and shifts management focus; you'll also be developing non-frontier cities as the game progresses. There's always something to do, and the focus of actions shifts between eras. Sins starts slowly, has a good middle game but not so good late game.

Bottom line? Yes, Rise is deeper.

Calling people capable of fast thinking something like "fast-twitch RTS players" is just silly. I'm a huge fan of Master of Orion (2), Dominions and Space Empires, but I can also appreciate a good RTS like Starcraft, Total Annihilation, Rise of Nations or Company of Heroes. I do agree with you that a fast speed does not equal strategy, but a slow speed also does not equal strategy.

And how to ensure that game speed and length are good for everyone? Speed controls, research cost options, accelerated start, victory conditions. :)
Reply #32 from Sins Forums Top
Let's see. Rise has 22 different unit types as opposed to SoaSE's 10 (or 12 if you include combat utility vessels separately.) The combat system, while simple, is still more varied than in Sins - it has directional (flank and rear) attacks, formations, variable targeting priorities, garrisoning and entrenchment. There are meaningful infiltration and sabotage units (no, Timed Explosives doesn't count.)Rise has more terrain features (location of resources actually matters), and placement of cities and buildings needs more thought. The economy is more varied, and needs more consideration than the simple payoff speed in Sins. Racing for Wonders adds spice to strategies.Those are the primary differences in content. I purposely didn't mention normal buildings or individual units, because those are really just fluff and arguably not that important to gameplay.Pacing and the tech trees are special cases. While it could be argued that the tech trees in both games are just incremental upgrades at heart with occasional new units and buildings, the "era" system in Rise results in far superior pacing. Each new era adds some new features and shifts management focus; you'll also be developing non-frontier cities as the game progresses. There's always something to do, and the focus of actions shifts between eras. Sins starts slowly, has a good middle game but not so good late game.Bottom line? Yes, Rise is deeper.Calling people capable of fast thinking something like "fast-twitch RTS players" is just silly. I'm a huge fan of Master of Orion (2), Dominions and Space Empires, but I can also appreciate a good RTS like Starcraft, Total Annihilation, Rise of Nations or Company of Heroes. I do agree with you that a fast speed does not equal strategy, but a slow speed also does not equal strategy.And how to ensure that game speed and length are good for everyone? Speed controls, research cost options, accelerated start, victory conditions.


I have to disagree. None of things you mention makes Rise really much deeper than other RTSes. The eras caused imbalancing, like the nuke problem. The combat was nowhere as good as in Total War.

Rise's extra eras detracted from combat. It wasn't as bad as in EE, but it made the game more annoying. Trying to be pseudo-historically accurate, while trying to make game-balance sense, never worked nicely in Rise. CoH is far superior in that sense.

IMHO, Rise is only "deeper" because it had more "stuff". In a fast-paced RTS, the endless "aging" and "why do I have to build another one of this?" just made combat more tedious. The Age series struck a much better balance between pace and upgrades.

Oh well, to each his/her own. ;) But I feel the upgrades in Sins generally have a more important effect in the game than the continual incremental changes in games like RoN.
Reply #33 from Sins Forums Top
My RTS tastes are opposite to OP. I like RTS with some more complicated resource and economy and i get really pumped up when there is also some "Technology" tree. Nowadays RTS are simplified to military aspect only, they totally lack of economy or science way of owning enemy. I usually play those RTS games with my friend and we do not mind very long battles. Our favorite game was Warzone2100 (fueled by beer) where matches lasted for 12 hours. We deliberately teched up to end and constructed infinite armys and defenses.

Also Supreme Commander falls short when compared to Total Annihilation, imo. open source clone of TA (Spring) is much better than SC.
Reply #34 from Sins Forums Top
My current impression is not that the game is too slow, but that the game is WAY too much a RTS. Once you have played just 10 or 20 games the unit counters are obvious, the tech choices easy to make and there's not much else to do besides fighting. And then you spend most of your time waiting for an interesting fight to happen or maybe mopping up planets after a fight. But there's nothing else to do with the time you gain with the slow speed.
Reply #35 from Sins Forums Top
My current impression is not that the game is too slow, but that the game is WAY too much a RTS. Once you have played just 10 or 20 games the unit counters are obvious, the tech choices easy to make and there's not much else to do besides fighting. And then you spend most of your time waiting for an interesting fight to happen or maybe mopping up planets after a fight. But there's nothing else to do with the time you gain with the slow speed.


I agree with this assessment completely. It should either have somewhat less delay, or more stuff for the player to do, macro wise. You can play a game against the computer on 8x speed, and still not have much to do, depending on the map.
Reply #36 from Sins Forums Top
1)This is Sins not Supreme Commander. Sins is a 4x RTS meaning it is supposed to take a long time. If you had read any of the reviews you would know that. If you want something like Supreme Commander then go play that. There should be absolutly no comparing when you are judging a game.
2)Your times are a little off, if you want fast matches then play games like Grind Stone. You end up fighting in like 20 minutes.
3)I think the game is a point that it is a very balanced and works well. I have had my moments of getting owned by every race.
If you wanted a fast game you have obviously bought the wrong game.
Reply #37 from Sins Forums Top
I take it the time acceleration commands don't work in multiplayer? Maybe they're working on a way to make it work for multiple players.


Uhm dude, its not time acceleration, its just increase in unit speed, decrease in time to build, decrease unit cost, etc etc etc. All that can be done in multiplayer, its effectively just a mod, changing the stats of the units...
Reply #38 from Sins Forums Top
Uhm dude, its not time acceleration, its just increase in unit speed, decrease in time to build, decrease unit cost, etc etc etc. All that can be done in multiplayer, its effectively just a mod, changing the stats of the units...


the + and - keys do this in single player, anywhere from 1x to 8x. Apparently no one knows this?
Reply #39 from Sins Forums Top
Yes Sins game takes time, it's not news to anyone. I like the pace overall. If it were any faster, if you got into a fight, you would have to spend 100% of your time in the fight. This would leave no time for anything else.
Reply #40 from Sins Forums Top
The end is coming, blah blah, it's Armageddon, blah blah. I love SINS for every single thing you've said. I love the deepness and intensity of the game; and the simple, intuitive interface. Congratulations on beating the AIs and everything. You get bragging rights.
Reply #41 from Sins Forums Top
Uhm dude, its not time acceleration, its just increase in unit speed, decrease in time to build, decrease unit cost, etc etc etc. All that can be done in multiplayer, its effectively just a mod, changing the stats of the units...the + and - keys do this in single player, anywhere from 1x to 8x. Apparently no one knows this?


Yea we know that, we're talking about online.

Has anyone played Defcon? It could be done like that. Defcon had a slider, where the game speed is as slow as the slowest selected setting, across all the players. So if all players select fast, it will go fast. If all but one select fast, it will go the slower speed.

I think it would work well, and probably wouldn't be all that hard to implement.