This is a little abstract for me. I'm just curious as to the specifics of this. What would you do to make the game become more like a 4XRTS, in a little more detail? (Taking into account that the game needs to remain playable in real-time.)

- How would you improve diplomacy exactly? What options would you add?

- Which alternate victory conditions would you include? And how would they affect gameplay? If you added a certain research victory, for example, I'd be pretty cheesed if you won the game by researching some abstract technology while my fleet is wiping out your planets. I'm not even sure how you would be able to stop someone, because we can't actually interrupt the research process of another player.

- As for "influence", do you mean culture? I will agree culture is underused in MP right now, but that doesn't mean it's not effective enough. Or did I misunderstand and do you mean another type of influence?

- What's included in "better and more diverse empire building"? What would you add to the empire building process?

Mind you, I'm asking all these questions because I'm curious about your ideas about this, not because I agree or disagree with you. I'd just like to see something a little more specific that really also considers the fact that it needs to be manageable in (1) a multiplayer environment, (2) a real-time playing environment, and (3) a play-balance sense, which seems to be difficult enough to maintain as it is.

This is a very interesting discussion, let's keep it going (and let's keep it polite)!

Just so I'm clear here (I've only played a couple small LAN games so far and we're still learning the tech trees and such), but there are no options of player placement in MP besides random?

So those "3v3" maps and such don't actually put a whole team to one side, etc?

So yes... another 4X vs RTS thread. At least its official. Nice to see some constructive comments for a change... hope I can contribute to that, with a nearly-coherent post

In any case... I have to agree, I was kind-of hoping for more of an empire-building RTS. In fact, I came across the game while investigating Disciples 3 and GalCiv 2... I ended up holding out for Sins (mostly because Disciples seemed at the time to be vapourware, and GalCiv2 in real-time REALLY intrigued me ).

Now, I play and love the Command and Conquer universe and games. I've played my share of Star Craft (LAN and SP), Warlords Battlecry II and many other obscure RTSs. All, except the Homeworld series (I could never get used to the interface).

I love RTSs. I love 4X games (Civ 4, etc).

IMHO: I'm really enjoying Sins. I believe it delivers what it promised and is a great platform for even more improvement in the future.

The fact is, that finding a balance between RTS and 4X is difficult. As an (obvious?) example: Yes, buildings on planets would be fun - it would give a bit more variation to the planets and might add a lot to the immersion. However, having to manage that, the orbital buildings AND your fleets, would just end up becoming a chore IMHO. Automating it would make it more manageable, but more-or-less destroy the immersion-effect people are looking for. Its always a trade-off. No game will EVER be perfect, no matter how many times the Melancholics of the world try to analyse it

However, something else that was mentioned above about capital ships, got me thinking:




This is the one thing that really dissapointed me... And I think, this is one additional reason some of us on the forum are shouting for a single player campaign: the mystery of the tech-tree. Those of us with the empire-building mentality (that leans more to the 4X side of things than the RTS-side) want a branching tech-tree and more defined victory conditions. Its fun playing and working yourself up the tech-tree for those shiny toys at the end... whatever they may be.

Plus it gives you a goal to go about working with a definite strategy in mind - in other words, every game is different since you're forced to think in more diverse ways. At the moment, it pretty much comes to: Research everything to get the most resources and the best guns, level everything up, build a big fleet, mop up the enemy.

The game is a sand-box game, which I can fully appreciate. I feel that the only problem is that the sandbox is slightly too limiting.

In any case, i'm hoping that was at least a bit constructive Just to make sure... a v1.04+ wish-list:

1) Better diplomacy... not too deep, but not as silly as the current implementation (covered in other threads).
2) Branching tech trees (that forces you to choose a single path and locks out the rest)
3) Multiple, more defined victory conditions.
4) Upgradable (do I put rockets batteries or fighters in this one?) outposts in non-colonisable systems... with special abilities, to keep it interesting, of course...
5) Better defenses... for us empire-building turtlers
6) Hidden tech-trees... Don't show me items beyond the next research topic.
7) Epic, motherships Super-weapons for every branch!

In any case...



Agreed And the post is finally over...

This is correct. Players are randomly placed on homeworlds, usually intermingled. In 3v3 it often results in 2v1, 2v1 setups where one player is sandwiched between two opponents.

I imagine if we took every map and split it into two systems, a great many problems would be alleviated. Sova rushing, and spam/rushing in general, would lose a great deal of power seeing how you'd be required to research long jumps, and then find the opponent in the other system.

So, if I'm reading this right, a lot of the spam issues and cheese strats wouldn't be so much of an issue in larger, more balanced maps? I mean, it makes sense in a way.

Brad, this seems like something very easy to fix, yeah?

I really don't want to see SoaSE turn into "Galactic Sliders: Adjusting tax rates in real time!". Not that dislike empire building games, I just have a hatred towards sliders that pepole seem to love. Does SoaSE have as much depth then Galactic Civilizations? Nope. But neither does SotS yet its a 4x game, the only features it has that SoaSE doesn't is sliders (weeeee), a very basic ship design system, and a random technology tree.

I think the problem here is that newer or very casual players in Sins will confuse the game for some sort of 4x hybrid, when it is clearly a RTS (pure RTS) in every sense of the word. The fact that the head developer believes it's primarily (or at least significantly) a 4x game is very disturbing.

There are plenty of very slow paced RTS games. Just because they aren't mainstream like Blizzard RTS, does not make them less of a RTS. Kohan and the Seven Kingdoms series, just to name 2, are very long games by RTS standards. They have extensive and deep tech (sorta like tech trees), and they are not reliant on hotkeys. They also did not try to bill themselves as anything but RTS.

The KEY differential between RTS and 4x is the option of additional VIABLE victory types. A culture victory is the same as a military victory in Sins. I think of culture buildings as planet destroyers. The colony is blown up for god's sake. How is this remotely like culture flipping? Of course, culture is a completely nonviable strategy, but that's besides the point (it can be buffed). There is no culture victory, technology victory, diplomacy victory, etc. And how could there be? There's no diplomacy to speak of, the tier 8 super techs are pretty cheap to research even by RTS standards, and culture doesn't convert anything.

Further, there is significant and game altering micro. For instance, if I played against an average player with maybe 30-40% less forces, I'd still win the battles easily because my unit control is that much better. To not know the hotkeys for your capital ships (with some exceptions) is an invitation to disaster.

Finally, the tech tree. Are you kidding me? Are you seriously telling me this even REMOTELY resembles a 4x tech tree. First and foremost, 90% of the trees are worthless. You can say you have 100 techs per race, but most of them are mirrors, and almost all of them are not worth researching (volcanic specialization, anyone?).

Further, to add insult to injury, the higher tier units are only marginally better than lower tier units, and you shouldn't ever go past tier 5-6 because the tier 8 units (besides RA) are either exceedingly expensive (Novalith), or useless (Insurrection....................).

Let's compare this to a 4x game, like the excellent Galactic Civilizations. How well does 10 tier 1 ships do vs a higher tier ship? They get butchered in seconds. How well does 10 light frigs do vs ANYTHING? Pretty darn well. Teching doesn't FEEL powerful like in 4x games, where you can leverage a tech advantage into a smaller but more dominant fleet. Here, capital ship levels/synergies + fleet composition and most importantly fleet SIZE matter more than tech. A tech 8 vs a tech 5, the tech 5 will win 10/10 times since he didn't waste money getting to tech 8.

So, to firmly disagree with Frogboy's assertion: Sins is not a 4x game, in any way shape or form. If you made RADICAL and enormous changes, it may become a 4x hybrid at some future date. As it is, Sins is STRICTLY a RTS, is played by most players (single and multi) as a RTS, and should be balanced as if it were a RTS.

This is not to detract from the game. I still like it. But I like it as a RTS, and I don't like to delude myself I'm playing some revolutionary hybrid. BTW, this game is very very very similar to Hedgemonia Legions of Iron, and that's billed as a RTS. By similar I mean, if you compared the two, you'd be hard pressed to tell which is which.

If anyone has a valid counterargument, please present it. But, please use detailed and broad knowledge of the RTS/4x gaming industry to make it. I don't want to see posts like:

I don't micro, so it's not a RTS (you don't micro in SC either, that's why you're bad)

I win with culture (you're bad)

I mass trade ports and don't attack (you're bad)

Get it?

Thanks

I think it's fair to say that Sins is a hybrid of 4X and RTS games. It's got strong elements of both. I wouldn't however, say that Sins is a real-time 4X game.

Sins has an engaging, tactical depth that is fun to play and isn't burdened with the irritating kinds of micromanaging that most RTS games require.

However, Sins does not have a wide variety of available strategies to play as most 4X games do. A game of Sins is either won or lost on the battlefield. Diplomacy, economy, and culture are tools that one uses to support fleets, but they aren't really separate, alternate ways of winning the game as they are in 4X games like MoO2.

Some specific examples of things that would make it more 4X would be:

Diplomacy: A way to acquire planets/ships/resources/increasingly better trade deals/etc from your enemies by bargaining/threatening them with a tech tree line to pursue this end.

Economy: A way to acquire planets or ships from enemies by becoming such an economic powerhouse that you can buy a planet's or ship's allegiance with a tech tree line to pursue this end.

Culture: A way to acquire planets or ships from enemies by making planets or ships abandon their culture for yours. As culture currently stands, it would need more tweaking and some buffing to make it a truly alternate strategy.

Espionage: A way to steal/sabotage ships and structures and/or infest enemy planets with agent provocateurs that would hurt a planet's allegiance with a tech tree line to pursue this end.

That being said, i think after enough patches or maybe an expansion or two, Sins will acquire more traditional 4X elements to the game and if, for some reason, that doesn't happen, Sins would still be a very engaging tactical space combat game with some 4X elements.

There are posts here about this not being a 4X game because of lack of research and victory options, and I thought I was lost on what 4X is.
I went to my favorite source (wikipedia) and found:

4X refers to a genre of strategy video game with four primary goals: eXplore, eXpand, eXploit and eXterminate

I wanted to paste the next paragraph explaining each but its long and i didn't want to get into trouble.

It doesn't say anything about how many research options it takes to be a 4X game.

I don't think this thread is going to go much further down that road until we clearly define what '4X' actually means and why this game fits the bill because frankly, while I don't feel it plays quite like Starcraft, I agree with pretty much everything Hunting just said. If Dawn of War divided damage enhancement research into 15 separate upgrades, would it have a research tree worthy of being called '4X'? Are Rise of Nations/Legends 4X titles because they use culture to influence neighboring territories(or at least a similar border mechanic)? Is any other RTS out there, once turned to a lower speed setting, going to be a 4X title because it's slow?

Again, I'll say that I really enjoy this game but I enjoy it because it brings together a number of RTS concepts and presents them at a pace that I find pleasing. I don't, however, see what it does that separates it into some vague new genre.



The primary goal of this game is to exterminate the opponent(s). At present, that is the 'only' way to win a game. Just like nearly any RTS that involves resource gathering in some fashion, the other X's will help you achieve that goal but in the end, the game is about destroying your opponents.

I still don't understand why SoaSE isn't 4X. You still eXplore new planets, eXpand into said planets, eXploit the resources on planets, black market, and pirates, and eXterminate. The argument is flimsy at best. If you seriously think some one make Galactic Civilizations run real time without it collapsing into anarchy, then your kidding yourself.