Are you sure about the maths on that one?

Sins isn't really about differenciation on a micro level, it's about differenciation on a macro level.


Also, what Limz! said. Relic have managed to get themselves a reputation of *almost* balancing their games perfectly and then releasing an expansion that ruins balance completely. The other case in point being CoH. We had an almost perfect balance between Allies and Wher, and then OF got released. Only now are we getting even close to balance again (and Wher players have had to completely change their game in a maximise cheese kind of way to counter Brits).

It doesn't matter how long you've been playing a game online, it matters how long you've been playing competetively online.

Actually, Sins is a very viable fast paced RTS game - play on Grindstone and you see the exact same methods employed in all RTS. You will immediately scout, colonize, harass and counter then build accordingly while trying to suffocate the player. You also have just as many options, hence why people have said this game fails at being 4x for them it's because it does lean more towards RTS. Thus, I am an advocate of saying: The game should be in its own category not hybridized.

To Zinras,

Despite agreeing with you, some of your arguments are also lacking.



That isn't a truly valid argument because you're going to either be doing hard econ or hard military, this is the equivalent of a RTS tech build or rush build. However, the recovery rate of either one is a bit lower. While you say the fight evolves, it is usually done in a RTS fashion : One sets the initiative the other reacts. This continues after the initial scouting and both normal RTS and Sins follow this formula whether intentional or not.

In essence, in both genres you come in with expectations and pre-set build. Thus, a full RTS and Sins are virtually identical, there is no necessity in distinction despite the time lapse difference.



Untrue. Some ships require X amount of research done and is the same in functionality as a teching build in a common place RTS. Also , the upgrade in Sins really make it hard to squeeze out more performance, for instant 5-10% barely increases the numbers and it isn't going to replace say that amount of ships in research cost. Feel free to prove otherwise though I am certain the numbers support quantity over quality until the end game.



You are never free to choose what techs you want, you will be reacting most of the time and counter the other time because you can only research one thing at a time and it takes forever! It's 8 research labs + a lot of pre-req techs, same thing as a RTS teching up. I have to get x buildings do x research to get y unit to make z super unit. Same thing.



Free for all is the only place where this really shines unless you figure out a way to do econ denial and jack up the black market prices to starve a player out - too elaborate and generally inefficient.

The main thing is this: Bensam's argument did not fail because he was comparing Sins to a fully fledged RTS but because the reasons and the spirit were completely off balance/erroneous. Many posters above have pointed out the vast differences and the nuances, I have also pointed out those things as well but on different things.

Alchenar,



Well, that's pretty much true for Relic though the initial release of DoW was horrendous: Guardians throwing triple plasma nades and space marine players rushing to the top 15 ladder by doing scout rush (admittedly, I was one of them).

As for CoH yeah, I guess it was pretty balanced save the end game I think favored Axis at the time due to the double Tiger and early game rifle spam really helped the Allies.

That being said, I dropped CoH because of the poor connectivity issues, I think that's everyone's beef with Relic and soon their beef with ICO - I wonder why no one takes Warcraft 3/B.net's approach to online gaming, would work better failing that use WiC's model of having servers. Peer-to-Peer while cheap is horrendous on many people including university clientèle.



Yes and no, shields do get stronger in mitigation values the lower the shield number is - you can get like 57% some times. That being said, you're right that it isn't about the differences on the micro level but it does occur due to the shield mechanics/armor mechanics and fleet composition which discourages focus fire with everything.

(Who focus fires a flak ship against a capital? =/ )

Yes i think im pretty sure about this. not 100% sure yet but if you watch a battle and click on a unit that gets focus fired by a lot of units he gets very high shield migitation (negates enemy damage) the example i used is the only one i tested (i was doing test on flak vs lrm) and 12 lrm focus firing on one flak if you clicked on the flak unit he had 57% shield migitation. The positive about that focus fire was that he would die (12*(1-0.57))-1=5.16 faster than if one fired (thats why that last -1) on the other hand he would loose 57% of his damage during this period. So that clearly favours spread out (enough to not get the migitation up..dont know if that means 1 ship..2.ships or 3 ships etc.) damage. But as I pointed out this totaly depends on the race too. If your fighting tec they have very little shields so you should focus fire mostly. Vs advent on the other hand... So first game that actually makes you micro differnetly vs the differnet races. Pretty cool.

Ah if its the case that sheild migitation goes up as the shield goes down then forget my comment about focus fire.. Well actually that would mean you would want fast burst of focus fire then switch over to single fire until shield is down then back to focus fire when your hitting armor. I guess I need more testing on this until i can say something that I know is true or not.

EMH,

You are 100% correct. Shield mitigation is scaled by the percentage of your shielding left, thus against Advent when you're down to 600 some odd shielding you get an absurd amount of mitigation. You actually want to focus fire at that point because spread fire would do very little. While against TEC it is viable to spread fire, but in general you will have units focus firing on other units which have a weakness to it but never a general focus fire.

However, you want to keep the damage consistent and above shield regeneration otherwise you'll end up doing nothing in all cases.

interesting stuff..and btw I agree this game is more about macro than micro. Your choices are much more important than the individual battles and that screams macro to me.

The fighting aspect does indeed play on the RTS part, which this game was made for. However, acting and reacting is also done in a 4X game (I assume you don't appreciate the enemy suddenly taking your city) and was not what I was getting at:

What I was aiming for is that you don't have to build barracks, then warfactory, then research facility, then upgrade your HQ to level 2, then get a new building before being able to upgrade HQ to level 3 and start getting whatever endgame tech you wish.

You can simply choose not to do this and while this might mean you lose on smaller maps, it was not really my point. In DoW you have to tech in that exact way which leads to an "ultimate" build order which all players must use at least 85-90% of to beat eachother, except for rare cases.

I should probably have noted I play as Vasari and that they have exactly 0 requirements for each of their ships to be built, other than X military stations. If it isn't directly connected to another icon, nothing else but X labs is required.

And of course I can choose to upgrade what I like, as I have no way of knowing if my enemy is upgrading the extra 5% damage or spending the next minute researching trade. It's a bit silly to state that, as it is entirely dependant on the size of the map and how paranoid you are about your enemy's capabilities.. This is boxing yourself in and letting other people decide your strategy for you

It's also incorrect when you say that my super weapon statement is wrong. I did not say you didn't spend resources to get it, I said you don't have to research ability A, B, C, D and E and upgrade your HQ 3 times before being able to build it. This is all related to DoW, which he wrongfully uses as an example of a partly 4X game. In DoW, you must get 3 HQ researches done, as well as you need different buildings from all previous techs to get to said HQ level, before finally unlocking the endgame tech.. This I pointed out to be a waste of resources in a 4X sense, which it is, as you can simply skip that HQ levelling and thus also the need for extra non-lab buildings if you please. If you look at your tech tree, pretty much all your end techs are directly unlockable from 8 labs and given enough resources, means you can skip all other techs and go right for it (mouse over it for requirements - It's 8 labs, nothing else.. Well, lots of cash too :P). Again, this you cannot do in traditional RTS games, as they require a strict upgrade structure.

And obviously, my black market statement would apply to FFA as you can otherwise get all the resources you need from your team mates, should they be wealthy enough, thus keeping market prices low.

I'm certain there are certain upgrade strategies there are definately more effective than others in the game but my point was merely that you can choose which way to go about getting to the end techs, instead of the forced structure of regular RTS games

HQ leveling = Logistics upgrade for the planet =P

I feel thus far that the RTS play is just as much as in any RTS environment simply because there is a best way to get the fastest econ up and there is the best way to conduct warfare i.e. unlocking all the units so you can have diversity or forcing your opponent into adapting to your unit spam so you can counter with an even greater different unit spam that overwhelms them.

I feel that the execution is the same though the spirit may differ and that's where my opinion is and why I feel that Sins is more close to a RTS than most people are willing to admit but I am not also willing to debate the point to death since that's not the topic here =P

Seriously, this is EXACTLY what I mean about the knee jerk response. Rather than saying, Sins has less diversity than a standard RTS- which WORKS with its game design, the reaction is a refusal to admit that it has less diversity.

It has less diversity, but that isn't a negative, per se.

Original DoW's sides, with the exception of Space Marines and Chaos, are drastically different with STRONG pre-defined themes: SM and Chaos- high quality, high cost jack-of-all trades units; Orks- cheap, hand-to-hand; Eldar high damage, low endurance hard counters army. You also fail to note the Waagh resource model of the orks.

Sins DOES NOT have such STRONG distinction between its races. Diversity in terms of gameplay comes from your actions in the game, not from the make-up of your units, when compared side-by-side.

Sins is a great game- that doesn't mean it has to be BIGGER and BADDER than every game, in every respect. It needs to work in its overall design, which it does pretty well. However, strong racial diversity isn't the cornerstone of that design.

The knee jerk response is failing to admit that anything about the game, when taken SEPERATELY, isn't equal to or better than some other game.

The math/logic above honestly makes no sense to me. Regardless of whether mitigation is static or variable, the end math is additive: it takes the SAME amount of damage (when ignoring shield and HP regen) to take down a ship, whether that damage is delivered in as focus fire or over time.

Assuming variable mitigation, the "received DPS", for lack of a better word, from a given damage source changes as a factor of the shield level. However, that equation adds up to the SAME damage over the life of the ship, whether delivered as short-term focus fire or longer term fire.

A simple example: assume a ship with 900 shield. No HP to keep it simple. Assume that when shields are between 600-900 damage is 100% (no mitigation); from 300-600 damage is 75%; and from 0-300 damage is 50%.

That ship requires 300 + 400 + 600 = 1300 TOTAL damage, regardless of how fast you deliver it. The speed of deliver only affects how fast you "cycle" through each of the mitigation bands.

I think the only thing that matters is that how the game was executed overall in its design regardless if the races are the same or not. And if players have fun with the game as a result of game execution. The special techs are different for each races and even though the basic units are the same for all three races, it is easier done this way for consistency and belivability, and easier for game balancing issues. The devs could have made it like starcraft, for every unit and a given best strategy for that partuicular unit, there is a countering unit for it. but then, what fun is in that. Sins is not meant to be play out like starcraft.

The real question here is: Vasari = TEC = Advent.
The answer is no.

Any other comparison falls out of the OP's intent.



Subjective, I find it as much fluff ridden as Dawn of War. As for the Waagh resource model, it's a cheap knock off of having to research your unit caps. I think what really matters most if we go off topic is whether or not the diversity affects real game play at all. For all intensive purposes in competitive play DoW is fairly linear and not very diverse.

It amuses me that if there was strong 'factional diversity', the 'wah races are teh samez' threads would be replaced by dozens more 'zomg teh imba' threads.

The difference between a "top" and an "average" player is just too big for the argument to make sense. The reason I use Starcraft as an example is because it has been around for so long that most of the things that can be talked about it is already established as "fact". Each race in Starcraft has their own distinct strategy that you can not use one tactic for another race and expect a similar result, provided you're playing against someone at the same tier. And no, I, or anyone who had a few years shared with Starcraft can guarantee you that it will take more then just a couple of games for a player who adapted to one race in Starcraft to fully adjust to another race. Can Sins be adjusted in a couple of game? Probably.





I didn't claim anything so I'm not sure what killed it. There is a strong difference between variety and the actual difference. I.E you can say there are a wide variety of cats ranging from shorthair, longhair, tricolor ...etc... but they're still cats at the basic. But when you say there are different type of pets, you're talking some distinct differences between a cat and a dog.


To put it in technical term (if it makes thing easy to understand), the reason I don't consider Sins's races to be difference because they share the same architect. Their built are varies, but the engineers of all races seem like they graduate from the same school and have the same design template. Starcraft is different not only because they're built differenlty, but the base architects are also different. The keyword here is, again, equivalent. I already said that each races in Starcraft have some role that can be catalogue, but having units doing the same role doesn't mean they are equivalent. Think about this dialogs:


TEC: I have the Cobalt.
Asari: I have Ravastra.
Advent: I have the Disciple.

TEC: I have the Krosov
Asari: Beat my Karrastra.
Advent: Meet my Purger!

TEC: My Kodiak rocks!
Advent: My Destra rocks even harder
Asari: Not as hard as my Skyrovas.


Not funny, I know. But these rough example should give you an idea what I meant by the same architect. Yes, Yamato and Carrier fill similar role, but are you going to say they're equivalent unit? And which unit from Zerg can even come close for a comparison. What is the Protoss equivalent to Terran's Ghost? Not Dark Templar that for sure. You see, when you say something equivalent, it means a peer to peer comparison makes sense.



Look, in case I haven't been clear enough, I'm not arguing which system is better whatsoever, so you don't need to be overly defensive about it, because I'm not saying Sins is BAD. The reason I say this because you brought up the argument about balancing in game like SC and later the MarineVSProtoss thing, which to me, totally beside the point of what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying which system is better, I'm just saying what they are, objectively. Hey, it's pretty clear what is the reason behind why Zerg is the most popular and Terran has the least love all around so no need to talk about that. I'm not trying to prove that this is good or that is bad, I'm just proving to you that this is A and that is B.



And just a word to everyone, maybe you guys should start thinking that sometime you can agree to disagree. You might never agree with one another, but it helps if you can accept the other arguments if they're valid. In another word, counter the arguments you're disagree with instead of simply dismissing and trashing them. The former can lead to some very good discussion, the latter ... well, I think your time will be better spent playing instead of posting because that attitude doesn't help your point to get across, regardless of you're right or wrong. Sadly, it's the latter that I see how most of the more heated topics on this forum is conducted. Treat other argument the way you want your argument to be treated, simple.

Thank you satthukaraoke, you've said the message I've been trying to express about why the teams in Sins are not really 'different' but with much more eloquence.

Thumbs up.

starcrafts units are the same in the sense that for every unit, there is a counter to that unit, i have posted this before in this same thread. In a sense, starcraft is like playing chess. And truth be told, does it really matter if the races are the same or not when you are playing the game as long as you are having fun. Let's not dissect this game the way we dissect a piece of work in a english lit class. Many people bought the game to have fun, including myself, not buy it then apply literary/game criticism to it and expect others to do the same.

  Hi all I’m probably going to get sh%^ and hell for this but here goes anyway



it seems to me that the vast majority (with exceptions) that have joined on this forum seem to have a very simplistic view and when the usual old game strategies don’t work they seem to get into a tif and go screaming the game is broken instead of figuring out new strategies and enjoying the challenge.

Case 1) patty cake syndrome: infuriating till I figured out that I had to have multiple small fleets and a deeper front line (not just one world) and this game seems to represent the fluidity of war as apposed to the static a frontline war.

2) pirates yet again irritated me at first but solved once I changed my mentality and figured out that the same strategy to point solve point one also solved this point
And not rushing off with my entire fleet only to leave my homeworld open to attack.


just 2 cases in point were actually figuring out how to play the game helped me
get more enjoyment out the game.

each race plays very differently imo
as stated in other posts
tec =turtle
advent= culture
vasari= attack

but more than anything what really infuriates me is the lack of tact and manners people have when posting please think before you post throwing insults only gets peoples back up
Now im not saying don’t criticise but please do
But do so in a polite and concise manner  

ps please also check spelling if I a dyslexic can use word to check my spelling before I post so can everyone else (general point not person specific)  

I've only played 2 games so far (1 against easy, 1 against medium AI) and both times I played as the TEC. By observing what the enemy and one of my allies was doing and such, I gather that the TEC is good at turtling up and building a massive economy before a full out assault. But that's just what I think, I haven't played as the other races yet so I'm not sure

Here's an easy one out of that: don't join threads that have the sole purpose of dissecting and discussing the game. A lot easier to control your own actions than running around trying to tell everyone else not to do something.

Sometimes I doubt if you have truly played the 3 races using their different techs or read the topic, specifically the post of mine you quote.
The claim isn't that there are other games that are more diverse, the claim in the thread is that Vasari = TEC = Advent, which simply isn't true.

Yes, they are similar at first but if you had actually read most of the thread you'd realize why: This is not a pure RTS game and thus also why the DoW comparison is extremely faulty, as the limits in DoW isn't what you can do but what you can't do. Try taking Necron to a long range duel with Tau or put a Necron Lord and a bunch of Flayers in a direct head-to-head fight with the Eldar with no running around.. Here, you can choose to be a Jack of All Trades if you like but just as much as in DoW, or any other RTS game, you will lose out if you work a strategy that just isn't suited for your race. Try going into a culture fight with Advent with another race, or try an economic battle vs TEC as Vasari and you'll see there is just as much variety in that sense. It just takes a little while until the full scope is revealed.

The entire point is that they all seem identical on the surface but once you actually tech up and get serious about it, you can see how diverse they are.

Also, the post you just made is a knee jerk reaction. My post was thought out and if you read the other ones where I take up some discussion with Limz! you'll notice that we can indeed agree to disagree by using proper discussion and not starting to yell at eachother by unleashing the fury of ALL CAPS.

Like I said in my other posts: This game is also 4X (ie. like Civilization etc), meaning that you have the same starting point but diversify later in the game as you tech up. There is no such thing in DoW, as no matter how I tech up my Orks or Necrons or anything else, I'm not gonna outrange Tau, ever (even the FW standard range is longer than just about anything in the game, short of artillery). Because this is 4X, I can indeed outgun my enemies if they choose a different strategy or if I use my abilities correctly. The difference in this game comes from the way you tech and use the abilities you have at your disposal, not how a race has to play.

You don't know many top players do you? They can and have switched from one day to the other; adaptation occurs over a few games once mastery over one race has been achieved. It's all in the micro, knowing how units work, and knowing the build orders in advance. You give yourself and the top players too little credit, barring that you just may plain suck at RTS games or that one in specific. It takes one game to figure out what builds what, it takes another game to get use to the hot keys, and it takes one more game for an overall adjustment. So three at worst/best. Also drop ship microing is pretty standard across all the races, so your analogy falls apart yet again.

There is very little difference in the execution of a lurker user , tank user, and a reaver user.

The difference between a top player and an average player stresses the game mechanics and system limitations, you obviously don't understand that. Games should/are/have been balanced around top tier play.



A difference is a difference, variations are variations. Diversity is diversity. What you're really talking about is your own personal preference and nothing objective about it. Your analogy also falls short, racial diversity / gene diversity. Yeah, it matters and also it so happens that cats have different personalities too though they may be the same - there are differences, diversities. The only way you can measure it objectively is to take the sum of a race and compare it to the others then calculate how many differences there are with and without stat lines then compare to the other races of different games. You'll find the margin very small.



Hi. Look at the OP's statement. Then look at mine. As for being defensive, I am not really but I do find that your argument lacks merit. In the end as others have posted, the execution is completely different thus pointing at diversity, because if the races weren't diverse then you would have the same execution - we have all agreed that this is not the case. There is no argument around that and perhaps that is the most objective way you can go about it. Also, why would anyone concede ground to half-baked arguments? Most of us have been doing exactly what you describe: We have been dissecting the arguments pointing out the stupidity in it then hurling it back.

Your analogies and comparisons are all flawed but we have responded and posted why they are not valid, we might not do it in a gentle manner but in truth we are not your friends nor your allies for personal/whatever reasons don't expect us to be any way. That being said, it is quite common to throw in the insult while making a good point.

For example, "1+1 = 2, you

Good god! You guys love you're big post!

Anyway, I've been playing since, well..... very very early beta 1 (back when the arcova was the only line frigate before the Kodiak frigate. In my experience, all the races look the same to those who have not played much and only played one race with token games for the others (if that). I play them all pretty equally.

Here my take on the diversity:

TEC:
-Better economic output.
-Better industrial powers.
-Low firepower high hull ships that are generally easy to produce if above two are take advantage of.

Vasari:
-Better resource output.
-Incredible strategic mobility.
-Ships have great damage output, even if usually physically weaker.

Advent:
-Great at culture wars.
-Generally weaker ships with unmatched shields.
-Ships (especially capitols) have great support abilities that greatly augment an entire fleet if put together; far more then Vasari ad TEC.

I'm done now

at Limz. I'll be brief:

- First quote: I believe you were talking about an average and a top player originally though, which I simply pointed out that the difference in skill would be too different for the race differences to matter. You were talking about top players will beat average player.

- Second quote: I'm not going to arguing semantic or definition of the word here. You're right, maybe we're having different meaning or scale for the same thing. But, like I said in order to be clear, I gave a few examples and expressed it technically. I think you and anyone who read the post understood what I meant by having the same artchitecture base and the units pretty much are derived from the same design template. Maybe for that reason, Sins races are not distint enough for me to consider they are "different". Maybe they are to you, but you get my point.

- Third quote: Well, like I said, there is nothing wrong to agree to disagree. It's ok to dissect and counter points that you don't agree with. However, I don't think that's what a lot of people here are doing, there are a big differences between counter an argument and dismiss an argument. Frankly, when you label the other argument as stupidity or idiocy, the whole discussion itself become pointless, as in it doesn't matter you're right or wrong, what you say just will never get across.


No, I'm not saying people should talk to each others like friend sor make this look like a hippy community. I just wish if people are to spend their time for discussion, it should lead to something that is constructive and productive, instead of a circle of dismmissing and insulting. Do you know why the constructive discussion usually grow, while the latter tend to have only a few things repeated post after post? Simply, like I said when people don't respect each other opinion, nobody will listen, and everyone end up repeating the samething over and over. Again, there is a difference between being critical and being offensive.


If you believe it's common to throw in insult while making a good point, I guess we are not on the same wavelenght then, to me, when you make an insult, you're not making any point, good or bad. I guess that's my cue to leave the thread then, have fun.

you just shot yourself in the foot there bud as you have just admitted that the races are different and therefore your argument is now null and void if you want to argue semantics i ask you to refrain as it will not really add to the game in any way.

my 2 cents as per usual