Personal feedback thread

more added later as well

So, the playable object is after some progress, I tried only 1.0.16, then 1.0.19 and later, 1.0.21.2

I did read at least some older, previous posts like that of 'Sovereign Echo', which ,apart from self-elevating rhetoric contained some actually very important things that I think you hopefully probably did take seriously. Like Akkan being unable to fire at the 'submerged' level. (if it is yaw or some other axis I constantly mix these terms, so I refer to subs, as to submerged level, I require/need English nowhere, I learned it mostly on my own here and there, not really practical for a thorough discussion)

'You' wrote in the 'propaganda' part of the official update that you made some design choices based on that feedback. On one hand, practical things might get solved more immediately, but what is the expectation of what it should be like and how it should play.

Combat is in need of slowing a bit. How much exp a capship requires - 27000 instead of 7800 ? The Exp they give seems still from the SoasE:R values, while starbases regardless of upgrades (?) give 2k exp. Without Exp boost, a single capship needs to witness 13,5 such events. (Or 675 Cobalts, 3375 supply, or , 185 625 gold, 37125 metal) Planet bombing, once finished gives exp, good stuff. If I did some math error, I hope not, but if not then currently its excessive.

Starbase beams and missile targeting seem like being only able to shoot above the level of the starbase beams and missiles. Consider that the positions of the missiles is elevated above already.

Cobalts, when they chase, they tend to escort their targets - but their angle of fire is very much unable to come in an angle where they would fire until the target stops. They do not pursue a trajectory to meet the target (something like the Proportional navigation)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZn9qg0XbSg

If you love the maths on that level you have my respect. No kidding, but something like this would be fine to make intercepts. Future target position, same for say a fighter, bomber, to not chase after, but to meet at a point where weapon releases. I had many more ideas, but I will post later.

sins ii feedback

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Thanks so much for the feedback! I'll make sure that the team sees this.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I've got thousands of hours played of the original game and about two hundred of Sins II. I can easily say, combat is over much faster in the sequel at this stage of development.

For my playing style, I don't mind (I send fleets not caring if they return). I rarely focus on a battle, I'm to busy expanding, researching and getting more resources. But for many players who are endeared to their fleet and capital ships, I could see why this is a major drawback. Victory in most battles, at the current settings, is determined at the time the fleet is launched. There's a little bit the player can do to change the outcome, like target the Javelis ships first. I don't know if the battles actually need to take much longer, but they do need to feel like there is time to respond and adapt to what the players find when they enter the orbit, and be able to retreat when things aren't going as planned. I think if the battle speed is going to stay within the ballpark of where it is now, then the ships would need faster turn speeds and more acceleration, so it feels like a player's choices matter.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What I would like is to know what feedback is already taken into account, so that for example I do not report the same thing reported or actually being fixed. For example Id like to test the ragnar or ankylon or its replacement if there is one.

Are firing arcs of certain ships looked into ? I do not look at the discord thing, if there is anything like it etc. Something like what you know is an issue that you do not appear not to know. Because the communication is then only one-way. The other side responds by a new version. Press briefing of the style : we are happy ... xyz might fit a report for some boss, while I might say Im ur boss cause I pay you Id like something that is not surface deep. There are many people and their products that are surface deep, they go in the width instead of the depth. Depth meaning things like understanding. Surface depth means doing what everybody else does because it works or worked so far. Having normalized knowledge of why things happen instead of knowing piece by piece cause and effect. This way you can evade the general trend of the surface level, that is prone to switch effect with its cause - or concentrating too much in one direction - like, you go and hit somebody in the face. Because lets say that you believe that you are entitled to beating the sheet out of the other person. For reason xyz. Since the prerequisites for hitting the other person are 'justified', you go there and start beating the other person for all the wrongs in the world for example. So, when the other person is sane and you get some beating, you might get ideas as to 'how dare you', and 'you stole my 'entitlehood''. (made up a new word there) But that is a picture when one part of an equation is ignored. The other side will appear to make an equilibrium if you will.

Examples below, at your discretion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sTJBM0e5dA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAbuqaXig_E

So, without a feedback loop, that you know and we are let to know, one side is kept in the dark about what is going on. Like, when approximately might we get some new changes to test, new mechanics for example and so on. Like, will ships if there is not enough space, try to not just go to the sides, but also to heights like fighters or corvettes or whatever. On the other side, it could be a lot of work - but perhaps it might be worth it. Like, to say, we have this and that in the works, or the new test version is being finalized and so on. Cheers

Successfully updated karma reason!