More Details On Sins Expansion Pack (Read!)

[edit] Double post...

That sounds awesome... star-bases are def on my wish-list

This slightly concerns me though: 'And while the expansion will include a campaign--a feature sought by a large number of fans--Wardell was a bit less enthused. "I never play campaigns; they're just such a checkbox feature."'

I'm very, very, very keen on a campaign... Although, as I've posted before, not the usual C&C linear campaign. I'd like to see an event-driven campaign on one big map... or a collection of scenarios (like HOMM or Disciples) IN ANY CASE... the point is... I'd rather not see a campaign at all, if they don't have a passion for making a good one. I'd rather stick to sand-box games and see the game content being improved...

However, now that we know how FrogBoy feels... I'd love to hear the Frasers' attitude towards a campaign... Are you guys keen on it, or has the whining on the forums finally irritated you enough to throw something together? *bump* *bump*

Looking forward to the exp.pack.

Birger

From post #2 :





I agree 100% with "Frogboy".

I never, ever, play campaigns.

I don't enjoy being instructed to « do this, do that, better do it the right way or else you'll have to restart » ... and being tediously annoyed by pre-scripted comps with armies of unfair sizes.

I read that earlier today. I like the idea of powerful starbases to help defend planets. My concern is about them being balanced with what currently exists in the game. It might become extremely tedious in shorter or medium length games when every single planet has its own starbase. However, having a single super-capital ship would make a great counter I think. Too bad that hasn't been announced.

Also, I personally do play campaigns/scenarios only AFTER I've gotten bored with skirmish/random/custom matches.

I think the appeal of the campaign is that it's a vehicle for providing more information about the lore of the game...

I imagine starbases will be pretty far down the tech tree and very expensive. I wouldn't want them to be common, rather something where you attack an enemy planet and then go, "Oh ****, they have a starbase". I want these things to be able to fend off fleets of 20+ ships. Anything more might be a little OP.

I'm very disappointed to read that. I love strategy games, but I don't like multiplayer that much, mostly because there is no way to compete really to gamers who do nothing else all day. Sure, I'll play a multiplayer game from time to time, but given also the number of issues coming with that, it's normally not something I do. On the other hand, I like a good campaign with a good story. I like to get my units scenario by scenario, or follow some objectives. It makes me feel like I belong with my units, I like them.

I've purchased Sins since the launch and I must say that it's a good game. I knew that there was no campaign at the launch, but I was also counting on a campaign after some time, but at least to have one. Now, to say that it's a "checkbox feature"...

Yeah, maybe Sins will become a "checkbox" game. "Sins? Yeah, I've played it. Nothing more to say."

Please, give us a campaign.

To me a campaign is a must. Take that as an opinion of mine

I really like sitting down relaxed and playing a campaign where i can drik my coffee and enjoy a great story. Which is something i cannot do in multiplayer as i get so stressed, since i just gotta do so many things in a short period of time ive never truly liked skirmish games as they had nothing for me since it just felt like an empty shell with no story and became repetitive.

Take Starcraft, blizzard claims that the success to the game was a mix of both multiplayer and a good campaign. Was said in one of the newer videos of theres talking about upcomming Starcraft 2.

I for sure looks forward to this expansion alot

Same here, hardly ever play campaigns. However if it was a totally dynamic campaign I may give it a go. More options for winning would suit me better, but I suppose we do not want just another Galactic Civilization either.

cheers MarkL

I myself never touch the campaigns, as it turns out I love good stories in my games, RPGs make up a good 80% of my all time favorites. Campaigns in RTS/4X games just don't mesh well. It sounds like people don't actually want a campaign, they want more backstory.

There's other methods to telling a story other than the use of strict campaigns. Content within the game (in this case skirmishes) should be able to tell a story in itself without the watered down use a campaign. Addition of artifact descriptions, where it came from, time period, and what kind of technology it is could all be driving tools in giving some backstory. Even short little bios on capital ships for when the ship was created and why. Make units within each race unique, in the Advent's case say the disciple vessels get a small stat boost for having 10+ of them in a single fleet as they're suppose to be about unity and one conscious mind.

Premade single player maps (that they already have) could be utilized further and have some set up where say TEC has places like Earth, Mars, and other nearby planets already colonized with tooltip hover overs that say how it plays a role in that races civilization would be a neat way to add some backstory. Premade maps like this could still be playable online just that you'd essentially only be able to pick which of the races that exist on the map you'll be (unless someone else already claimed it).

Give an epilogue to loading premade maps. Say the map has to be played by the Vasari, in the epilogue just tell us more about the way they fleed from this force that was after them and that they settled down at the star system they're in now in hopes of recuperating losses only to find there was other hostile forces that had shown up to compete for the system and they either need to drive out these forces or be destroyed. If they added what a lot of people had mentioned about random events happening, this force that's chasing them might happen to have a few of their ships roaming into the map. Again, could still be used online, one person would just be set to having to play the Vasari.

Using different things like this I think they could effectively give a good backstory without having to bog down the game with finish task 1, then task 2, etc. The maps could still remain freeform this way. The ideas may be a little rough and there would be a lot of balancing issues but I'd much rather see things like this than a prescripted campaign.

Yeah exactly. That is what I find fun about campaigns is that the story is told. Also it sets up conditions that can be unique to the campaign which I also find fun, such as a handful of ships with limited development to get through the screnario, things like that.

The only thing that bummed me out about the article is that it sounds like the expansion is really far away. I didn't expect it to be "soon" but I also didn't expect it to only be at the drawing board stage.

I'm with Pickle3 on this one. The campaign would help to support the lore. The main reason, why I think, that people want a campaign to this game, is that there is to little inforamtion to support the lore. I mean the campaign is only there to be a
"vehicle for providing more information about the lore of the game". If the lore had more support, like telling me who each factions culture, military, economy, and technolgy worked like they did in Mass Effect, I don't think that many people would be asking for a campaign in a RT4X. I just hope that the campiagn story, help to support more elements of the lore.

Also I would like it, if it was the Siege Frigates, that where the massive planetary defense structures ships, as right now as it stands, they are useless. We should not add more ships, if there are all ready useless ones, that need fixing.

Most games these days don't have a campaign that's all that hard to beat, at least on a normal level. Supreme Commander I beat, and so I also beat Company Of Heroes and World In Conflict. (All of the bigtime gaming geeks are going OOOOooooo!! with their sarcastic voices, but I am pleased with myself that I beat those games)

I have no illusions about the story-telling abilities of most game developers. A game developer is primarily interested in making money, not fan fiction. Usually, game producers are terrible storytellers. Witness X3:The Expansion, for example. I do not look forward to the stories in most campaigns.

What I do really like to see in campaigns is that they act as advanced tutorials of the game, which is something Sins could totally use. In many campaigns, each mission will emphasize a particlar unit or unit type. One map shows you the advantages to infantry, another gives you armour and artillery, and then another shows you air strikes.

In sandbox games, I will fall into using a core group of units, and I won't use many others. A campaign can make sure the gamer gets to see all of the units he or she paid to see. Again back to Supreme Commander: there was one point in the Cybran campaign when I got control of an Aeon commander. As I almost exclusively play Cybran, this gave me a chance to build Aeon Experimentals (super-units). I built a half-dozen of those big Aeon flying-saucer thingies and glassed the opposition. That's something I would never have done outside of a campaign.

Other good point on why we want a campaign, as it show us not only game units, but functions, that we would only find after playing the sandboxs, thre or four times.

The thing about sandboxe games though is that they still have a back story and overarching plot. Thats the only real disappoitment I had. (Aside from the lack of of Planetary Assualt.) It sets up this awesome opener with a really great backstory in the manual then you get to playing and theres hardly anything about this awesome story!

yea i don't like campains in strategy games as much either. If this energy could be used in other aspects of gameplay it would be beneficial.

I think it would be cool if you could actualy control planets a little more instead of them simply being big spheres that look cool but cannot be manipulated. It would be awsome if there was an abuility to see your capital city or somthing and actualy build it up and try to siege other cities ect... just throwing it out there...

The Defensive base is a great idea

I would like a little more abuility to place objects without a restraint so i can actualy build defences and creat the thing that realy makes a strategy game appealing.

I think planetary defenses ( i.e. surface to orbit) would be another cool idea. Perhaps another planetary development option with multiple levels of upgradability that increases it's effectiveness against any ships that get within its range. The range of course would have to, at the very least, overlap the bombardment ranges of the capital ships and seige frigates.

It seems to me that planets are helpless in the absence of a fleet and should be able to do a fair job of protecting itself from bombardment by firing back. I'm not saying it should be able to destroy a sole seiging capital ship (or at least not the first one or two planetary upgrades with a low planetary health), but it should be able to hurt it enough that the seiging player would think twice before making the commitment to attack for fear of a reinforcing fleet jumping in and destroying the weakened capital ship.

If my seige units can encounter starbases, I hope I get starbase destroyers to accompany them. No supercapitals please. these just make the game about whoever can build one first. Or, at least make it possible to destroy one without having one yourself.

after reading the post at ign.com, I have a question to ask, will this make winning Pirate bounty, useless, as now the Pirate can not win against a massive planetary defense structures