Why?

Play of game...

I've played both beta 1 and 2 many times, and have some general comments

Some of the posts I've seen seem to miss several key points of the game, that later in the game pirates (marauders) do attack everywhere, not just your systems, but your opponents. I think it happens when you reach a point in your development where you encourage disruptions in other economies. Your opponents, imho, have already reached that phase and the baddy's are after me. Most of the times you can build up your planets defenses to ward them off. I have been surprised to find destroyed systems late in the game, and know, without a doubt, that it's because marauders were there before me and wiped out one of my opponents strongholds.

On another matter, I have seen posters indicate that they can win easily after a few hours of play. Not my experience. I've played for over 6 hours and still lost.

Things I like about beta 2 over 1 >

Limiting your military fleet size means you need to manage your forces better, and not merely win because you outnumber your opponents fleet size -- which I saw in beta 1. I like the point system for frigate/cruiser breakdowns versus capital ships too.

I like the page break system between empire, combat and artifacts.

Overall all, I like the interplay with economy, combat improvement needs, etc., and I enjoy occasionally actually taking part in a battle. For the most part however, I take a fleet commander point of view and seldom get involved, instead looking at statistical relevance of fleet size and make up before I enter into battle, and watching my ships strengths and weaknesses as the battle develops. The game shows real promise.

Things I don't like...

The time to play the game is far too slow. It takes 'forever' to get a fleet 3 or 4 jump planets away, and the antimatter build up time is too slow... I guess that's the operative expression -- too slow. Even a small galaxy developed against 3 or 4 opponents required over 10 hours of play once the pirates started taking on my planets too. And sending aid was just too slow. If I wanted to change anything it would be distance travel time would decrease. I can't imagine playing a large galaxy game structure -- I just don't have that much free time in my life for this kind of game play.

Those are the key points as I see them so far.

Ulsio

As far as I can tell, you can't set a rally point in another system, I haven't been able to do it, anyway. So if you're cranking out ships in one system and your fleet is in another, you have to rally in the manufacturing system, then move them over to the new system, then highlight the entire group and "ctrl#" the lot.

That said, a sugestion for the gold, let _us_ prioritize our AI's attack. When you have you fleet shootin' up the bad guy, have his warships wiped out but have those pesky hangers pumping out squads and your fleet goes haring off after a colony ship on the other side of the system right by a group of gauss cannons, and then off to attack another colony or explorer back on the other side of the system it can be, well, irritating. I know you can grab control, but if you have multiple battles, jumping back and forth you can miss things.

pek

I imagine the tactical AI will be improved somewhat before the release version.

As for the game taking too long, if they get rid of the present sequential travel between stars (A-B-C-D-E-F) in favor of 'any star to any star' (A-F), it will cut down the game duration.

Also, if you limit the number of planets on the map in the setup, you can speed up your games a bit.

Right now, culture really makes invasions of enemy star systems crazy difficult. You end up having to wipe out every planet owned by your opponent before you can colonize.

Ironclad needs to make it so planets don't rebel on you when you have a large fleet in orbit around it. This way, it is possible to invade an enemy system, but you can't just steamroll/speed colonize your way through all his planets.

culture is fixed, they have said that the TARGETING AI is perfect, and the rest has been improved.

You can colonize a planet that has another culture line close to it, it does not have to be your culture. You just have to pick your spots.

I really used to like how objects would cast shadows in Homeworld 2. I hope Sins has at least that level of shadow dynamics.

I also am still hoping Sins has some sort of 'System Lord' status for any players that hold an entire star system (or more). They should get small bonuses on reduced pirate/insurgent attacks (in that system), as well as reduced black market purchase costs.

Of course, those players should also get a 'System Lord' icon next to their player name. This way, other players will know who has entire star systems and who doesn't. This would make some interesting diplomacy between 'System Lords', as well as let other players know who to gain up on.

Interesting how the Sova Carrier has it's bridge near the aft of the ship. The US navy is going to make the bridge/tower on its new super carriers close to the aft as well...do you think they are copying Ironclad's design?

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/design-preparations-continue-for-the-usas-new-cvn21-supercarrier-01494/#more

A little complaint about the Sova. Its bridge/tower right now is freaking huge and lego block-like. I think it would look more authentic if it were reduced a bit in height and a lot in width. You guys might even consider adding some towers/antenna on the ship to simulate command/control sensors.

I was thinking over the whole fleet/logistic/tactical point system versus upkeep system today. Does anybody else think that the upkeep system is probably the better way to go? It would dispense with the whole artificial point system.

Right now, I dislike the idea that I can't build more than so many certain type structures around a planet. I could have tons of resources to do so, but I am not allowed to do so because....well, just because!

I think the only problem with the original beta 1 upkeep system was that it capped out at 75%. It should have been able to go over 100%. Maybe even give deficit governments some kind of political penalty.

I know that the upkeep system will mean some people will concentrate their purchases and stack a key system with defensive structures. But that also means that they will have a huge resource drain concerning that one system and will be less financially capable in the offensive or in defending other areas.

Anyway, what do you Ironclad guys think about this?

P.S. Looks like the newest patch will get rid of the last second strike craft super speed landing dash...thanks!

Can any ironclad guys answer my previous post?

The only real problem I forsee is the fact that resource intake isn't a steady ongoing process, except for credits -- minerals / crystals tend to come in "chunks" in late game, as refinery ships return to "base". Thus it'd be difficult to accurately gauge your mineral / crystal surplus.

Hey. I posted this in the Beta 3 topic but is there anyway (or will there be a way) to disable that "movie" when you start a game (not the company logos, the thing where it zooms in to one of your ships) so that it just shows it further zoomed out and it just stays there (I think it is what is causing lag in my games because it speeds up as I play unless I zoom in too far). Thx.

This game has the potential to be the Master Of Orion 3 that we all imagined, but never received, the Pax Imperia 2 that fell far short of expectations, the epic space empire game that I have been seeking for 10+ years. But potential is what all these games start with. Can Sins truly evolve enough to turn potential into reality? I hope so, but as the game stands now (yes I know it's a BETA), it falls short in many areas. I will try to bring up points that others have not.

Defense:
- Others have stated that there needs to be more defensive options - I agree. One suggestion is to incorporate the ability to have all space structures upgradeable with weapons. I imagine a game where I click on a research center or mining facility and there are 3 buttons where I can choose to build missile launcher or Laser torrents, or flak guns. You can limit it so that each structure can only have one of the three - or may be no limit at all. I can imagine a spectacular space battle where all the structures are shooting at the approaching fleet of ships in a desperate attempt to defend the colony long enough for reinforcements to show up. I also think this approach is realistic.

Fleets:
Fleets need a lot of work. I can win this game with only light frigates and one cap ship. So what can we do? Certain cruiser class ships should have AOE bonuses to those in the same fleet (+10 defense, +10 movement, +10 Attack) make them stack with diminishing returns. This would make combat more interesting because you would want to take out these 'support' and 'command' cruisers first to disorganize your opponent's fleet. This is a middle of the road suggestion to those who want bonuses for positioning fleets in a certain way relative to their opponents fleet - an idea I like but doubt will be considered due to the limitations the devs want to put on micro management. Again I also think this is realistic in terms of space warfare. I also like the previous recommendation to be able to target sub-systems of cap ships. Many other suggestions have been made and I agree with most of them, fleet battles need help, a 3D plane would help as well, nothing beats a HomeWorld battle in true 3D.
- When selecting multiple ships, please provide the summary of how many of what ships and at what health they are at in the middle picture viewer. PLEASE!!! I know there is a way to make it pop up as a card but it's a pain.

Tech Suggestion:
In my time of play I did not see an engine upgrade that would increase movement across your fleet, I think this is must have tech and that there should be several levels of it.

Diplomacy:
This is a Beta and I am just going to assume that it gets better. To give any constructive criticism in this area would take more time than I have. It needs to be completely redone.

AI:
The AI is both really good and really bad. Focus targeting is a must, focus targeting on CAP ships is a must. Playing on FLAGSHIPS where when your mother ship is destroyed you lose (perhaps only meant for Multi-Player) the AI need to know not to send that ship out solo to get wasted.....it should be protected at all costs.


Nit Pick:
The flashing lights on ships are timed at the EXACT same time, very unrealistic and annoying - please make it random.

Possible Bug or Game play issue:
When conquering an asteroid in the heart of a foreign empire the second I bombard it to zero it gets recolonized, is this because of their influence?

I am sure I have more but they escape me as of now. Please don't let this came fall from the top shelf like so many other games of its kind. I don't care if the release gets pushed back to summer of 2008 - JUST MAKE IT RIGHT.

Most of your problem here is less with the game mechanics and more with the AI. When the AI is better, you will need better fleets to defeat them.



I disagree. The lack of static defense options encourages defensive fleets, and good strategic play. Sure, it's funny to watch wave after wave of enemy ships fall to your statics, but it's not very fun to play, especially if you're attacking (Especially if you combine this with randomly moving fleets, so your ships will run madly into the enemy firing ranges).



While I admit this isn't balanced properly yet, there is a gameplay mechanic that will make focus fire a disadvantage. When the shields take hits, they are able to resist damage better. So, if a ship is being focus fired upon, it will only be taking 40% of the damage. If you spread out the fire, you deal more total damage. Note that this doesn't apply to unshielded units. Focus fire away then.



If these are some kind of navigation lights, then it makes perfect sense.



Yes, this is because of culture. It is being tweaked in the next patch.

Anything I didn't comment on, I agree with.

I understand your point here. I guess it all depends on how powerful the defensive torrents are. I envisioned a system where they could not hold off an attacking fleet but they could significantly delay it so a defensive fleet could come to the rescue. I really think this would be an interesting feature. You could also add some technologies specific to this capability. Looking at real life situations, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (research center) has modest defensive weapon capabilities, enough to hold out until the national guard responded. I bet they could implement this in a fair and balanced way.

About your shields comment:
Are you saying that when a ship is under fire by one target it takes more damage than when it is under fire by multiple targets (on a % basis), given that the ship has shields? So a ship being fired upon by 3 ships would have reduction of 20% while a ship being fired upon by 10 ships would have a 40% reduction in damage (for example)? How does that work?

Hi PowerTowerPro, this is in response to your posts.

1-You have to be careful when you bombard a planet in an area of strong enemy culture. If you kill the planet AND you have a colony ship in orbit with auto-use colonize ability ON, the planet will be automatically colonized by you (your Arkan BCs are usually the culprit here). Of course, 1 second later it will switch sides on you due to the strong enemy culture.

Please note that if you don't colonize the planet you just wiped out, it will NOT return to enemy control (unless they send a colony ship to it).

-Defenses hold serious balance concerns for the designers. If you make them too strong, the game becomes stalemated. Too weak, and the players send multiple wimpy fleets running rampant all over the place (almost 'what-a-mole' like).

As for your comment about putting weapons on every structure, how would that work? I mean, these structures are designed and built with specific roles in mind. You can't just slap on massive weapon systems and not degrade the original purpose of the structure.

The point is, nobody would slap on weapon systems if the original structure purpose was reduced. Can you imagine playing a game where you give your mines weapons, but then they only bring in 50% of the income? You would get wiped out.

-Both Homeworld and Sins of a Solar Empire are in 3D (none of this lame Lucas Arts 2.5D crap here). The problem right now is that there are few reasons to use 3D in SoaSE (especially with the gravity wells being so small).

But don't praise Homeworld 3D too much. I mean, most battles in Homeworld occurred between 2 resource points (doesn't matter if one resource point is higher on the Z plane or not, it still mostly came down to the shortest line between two points = effectively 2D). So most of the action in Homeworld was in 2D just like in SoaSE. Sure, some of us would sometimes try multi fleet 3D plans of attack, but often this would simply result in our fleets being defeated piecemeal.

Anyway, I am just saying that most of the action in Homeworld was still on a 2D plane. Don't expect any different from Sins.

Note to Developers, you guys had better keep the 3D system in place.

-You wanted cruisers to support fleets more but they already do this. The command cruiser is the perfect example of what you are asking for.

-You expressed some confusion about shield damage mitigation. As it stands, if shields take enough damage within a short enough time frame, they become more resistant to damage. Think of it as some sort of shield flare up.

This shield system was put in place to discourage focus fire in games. The problem is that it still doesn't do nearly enough to reduce the importance of focus fire. Not by a long shot.

I made a suggestion earlier on how to help further reduce focus fire importance. Basically, ships taking hits in combat would receive a weapon accuracy penalty from being buffeted around by the impacts. Combine this with the shield damage mitigation system, and suddenly focus fire isn't the only viable tactic. The developers never really commented on my idea though.

-Yeah, lights and weapons fire should all be randomized a bit so there isn't this unrealistic synchronization going on.

Oh, I hope Ironclad plans on letting us use our own MP3s for the music if we want.

You have a ship (probably an Akkan) that is set to auto-colonize. What happens is that when it colonizes the planet, it instantly flips to the enemy. Its being fixed in the next patch so that you can't colonize a planet that will insta-flip. I think they're also tweaking the actual culture values.

Just wanted to say I really like the distance from Capital Planet income loss concept.

It will help prevent a bigger opponent from steamrolling over everybody. Victory will balanced between diplomacy, economy, strategy and tactics...not just economy.

Hey, if Pirates are now a faction (sorta), does this mean they get capital ships?

I also wanted to make a suggestion about the zoom feature.

Right now, the z, x, and c buttons are fine for close, medium and far views. But on big maps, sometimes the 'c' far zoom button just doesn't zoom out far enough.

I find myself often pressing the 'c' button and then using the scroll wheel to zoom out even further to get a bigger picture of all the star systems.

If you guys could add a 'v' extra far out zoom button, that would be perfect.


Oh, and sometimes when I use the scroll button for zoom, the zoom 'slips' backwards a bit when I let go of the wheel. Could just be my mouse wheel though. Anybody else notice this?

Bombers Bug

Bombers set to fire within weapons range , sometimes can sit still and fire on a target which makes it more effective.

Guass Platform Icons

Guass Icons are too big imo , theres alot of cluttering when you put them together.

Wow, stationary bombers would rock. They would effectively be missile platforms.

I do hope by the time of the final release, Ironclad makes the bomber missiles actually smaller than the bombers themselves.

Hey, does anybody else find the bombers still a tiny bit overpowered? Maybe faster fighters would balance things out.

Hey, will it be possible to get custom faction icons (like you put an icon in a folder and it appears on the icon list)?

reply #500 FTW!!!

and i second thrawns idea

and no, i dont find bombers overpowered, i just find that the AI is stupid about fleet management