Tholan

Reply to Beta 4 Feedback - Seasoned game player/tester in Beta Feedback Sins Forums

Excellent feedback makwu. Well written.

Reply to The Witcher in Games Sins Forums

I am nearly finished chapter 2. So a bit farther than you. I play much like you do. I don't like to leave a stone unturned. This has meant I have progressed quite slowly through the game. I have played for over a week for a couple of hours every night and I am only near the end of chapter 2 (of 5 chapters + the epilogue). The game definitely offers a lot of play time. There is also a lot of replay value too. Already I am thinking of how things would of turned out if I had

Reply to The Witcher in Games Sins Forums

Interesting. Most people always ask for more openness in a game. Your one of the few that find many RPGs too open. And I 100% agree which is one of the reasons I thought this game was so refreshing. While you still have a lot of decisions to make, it is somewhat more linear. This allows for much more in depth story telling which is one of the things that has got me hooked on this game .

The Witcher in Games Sins Forums

Has anyone given this one a go? An RPG hasn't hooked me as much as this one has in a long time .

Reply to The new colony negative penalty in Sins of a Solar Empire Sins Forums

[quote]in order for population to grow you have to upgrade it[/quote] Not entirely. Once a planet is first colonized it isn't at max population; with or without a planetary upgrade. There are also research technologies which can increase population. I was thinking that as the population reached its max population without any planetary upgrades it would start to break even. The system is good, I agree, in the sense that it puts a deterrent on rapid expansion. I also agree that i

Reply to The new colony negative penalty in Sins of a Solar Empire Sins Forums

I think the penalty should naturally go away as the population on the planet increases. On planets that support a high population by default, this penalty should disappear and the planet could even start making a profit without having to invest in planetary development. On planets that don't support a high population by default (like asteroids) then they wouldn't become profitable until you put in at least one planetary upgrade. The other thing I thought of is to have the ability to ab

Reply to Dear Devs: The infinite economy makes me sad. in Sins of a Solar Empire Sins Forums

Gauntlet makes some excellent points. In particular: [quote]we have an infinite economy with an interface designed for a finite economy![/quote] I would go a step farther and say that not only is the interface designed for finite resources but the way the game itself is designed is for finite resources. Not having a res storage cap and having a unit cap both lend themselves to a finite resource model. If Ironclad did as Gauntlet suggests and added an infinitely repeatable bu

Reply to Dear Devs: The infinite economy makes me sad. in Sins of a Solar Empire Sins Forums

[quote]if you play correctly you should be desensitized to your resources throughout most of the game[/quote] This quote bothers me some. I think you should always be sensitive to your resources throughout the entire game. If Sins is designed in such a way that "correct" game play means you are desensitized to your resources then that would indicate a problem in my view.

Reply to Dear Devs: The infinite economy makes me sad. in Sins of a Solar Empire Sins Forums

[quote] This criticism may hold true wrt to SupCom O.o nice phrasing -- with respect to to supcom? [/quote] I just have a bit of a stutter

Reply to Dear Devs: The infinite economy makes me sad. in Sins of a Solar Empire Sins Forums

[quote] Games that apply an infite res model usually don´t let you hoard infinite amounts of these res. Actually they enforce a quite rigorous cap that you can expand by spending res. THAT is a very very good point. [/quote] Indeed. When a resource storage cap is in place it encourages a player to spend that res in a timely manner. This leads to players building and sending wave after wave of units into the fray. Sins

Reply to Movable Ghost Structures in Space While in Build Queue in Beta Feedback Sins Forums

[quote]no he wants to change the order in which it will be built. [/quote] That is not what the quote says and definitely not what I meant. In this case "move" does not mean change the order in the build queue but rather to physically move the object in space. It is a very handy feature that really frees you up from having to redo a lot of clicks. And I agree with many of Gauntlet's assertions. There are many things that SupCom did very well in terms of the UI. The ability

Reply to Dear Devs: The infinite economy makes me sad. in Sins of a Solar Empire Sins Forums

[quote] Thats not a solution at all. In fact that would make it even more ridiculously hard to compete with even a slightly smaller empire. On top of the PC requirements for that lol [/quote] What problem are you trying to solve? With respect to having a place to spend your resources, not having a unit cap goes a very long way to do this. I think it is a great solution. It should be a difficult competition even if one empire is s

Reply to Movable Ghost Structures in Space While in Build Queue in Beta Feedback Sins Forums

What gauntlet said. It saves you from having to scuttle something and move it to the end of the queue.

Movable Ghost Structures in Space While in Build Queue in Beta Feedback Sins Forums

I have not seen this suggested yet but one thing I would like to see is the ability to move a structure that is in the build queue. I will often build a few things then want to move a turret that is in the middle of the queue and have to remove everything in order to change its position. Note that I do NOT mean change the order of something being built in a build queue (although this is a good idea) but rather to move a structure in space before it begins construction.

Reply to Dear Devs: The infinite economy makes me sad. in Sins of a Solar Empire Sins Forums

My solution to this would be to remove all unit caps. Actually allow the player to spend all that extra res and have gargantuan battles between fleets with 100+ cap ships .

Reply to Losing a cap in a small game is too punishing. in Beta Feedback Sins Forums

[quote]My last attempt to explain what you're not understanding, after that I can't word it in any other way and I'll be done [/quote] I'd really appreciate that. I would like to move back to the slippery slope discussion. It is obvious we can't communicate rationally. No need to bring this up again. Ultimately, I wanted to make another suggestion to combat

Reply to Idea: Gradually paying for stuff in Beta Feedback Sins Forums

[quote]This is precisely what a 'stall' is [/quote] Well, actually no it isn't. Perhaps one of these days I will have the energy to write up an in depth scenario for you and hopefully for the devs to read. I think it would work great and not have any of the negatives you mentioned here. The scenario you outlined isn't what is on most people's minds. At least it is not what I was thinking. [quote]If you add it to the top of the queue, it overburdens your income even more sinc

Reply to Losing a cap in a small game is too punishing. in Beta Feedback Sins Forums

[quote] Much like you can fabricate resources infinitely in Sins, even if you only control one planet. It may be slower, but it's no less infinite. Again, different magnitudes/rates of increase do not change the basic principle that your resources continuously increase and never run out. I know the point you're trying to make that in SupCom, you can have a more sprawling economy in a smaller area of physical space than in Sins. But that's just the physical way of differing magnitude of the e

Reply to Losing a cap in a small game is too punishing. in Beta Feedback Sins Forums

[quote]Basically, Tholan, here's what I don't understand about the supposed slippery slope in Sins. Let's use your example: Once that initial battle is lost whats to stop the victor from bypassing your outer defenses and hitting your factories? They can take out any hyper inhibitors with few losses and move on there merry way. So basically, your opponent wins the engagement, and we make the assumption that he has enough forces le

Reply to Losing a cap in a small game is too punishing. in Beta Feedback Sins Forums

[quote]You lose one of your outer planets, along with the bulk of your fleet while trying to defend it. Your shipyards are 3-4 jumps away from that planet, deep in the remainder of your territory. You have plenty of time to rebuild a fleet to attempt to halt the enemy advance before your shipyards are in danger.[/quote] We shall see. Lets bring this topic up again a few months after release and see how more of the competitive games will be played <img src="smiles/Wink.gif" border=0 alig

Reply to Losing a cap in a small game is too punishing. in Beta Feedback Sins Forums

Sorry Annatar, it is simply completely different. I have been trying really hard, but I just don't see how what you are saying is related to the topic at hand. It isn't only that SupCom is built on a different scale; it also built with a different resource model. That difference is that you can fabricate resource infinitely, independent of how much of the map you control. Whether you play on the smallest or larges map, you can still get the crazy +2500 resources I gave screens of. Th

Reply to Losing a cap in a small game is too punishing. in Beta Feedback Sins Forums

[quote] And you don't need to increase the unit cap with mods. 500 is the default but increasing it to 1000 is built right in. I don't think anyone has even created a mod to increase the size beyond this number since it is so crazy large to begin with, although it is possible. Someone has already tested 10K units... and was working on 50K, IIRC. [/quote] That is very cool. I did notice the thread of multianna with

Reply to Losing a cap in a small game is too punishing. in Beta Feedback Sins Forums

[quote]But you misunderstood what I said. Both use a pretty similar system where you don't need to build workers to gather resources for you. In Supreme Commander, you build mass fabricators and power plants for your resources. In Sins, you build trade centers and refineries. In both games, the ability to expand this economy is very high (a fully upgraded Terran planet with Logistics can fit 8 refineries, for instance), but not limitless.[/quote] The economy is Sins is not very high in

Reply to Losing a cap in a small game is too punishing. in Beta Feedback Sins Forums

[quote] And take note that I was actually spending every last penny of that income. It is one thing to be able to have that kind of an income. Quite another to have the infrastructure to spend it all. not if you're building a zillion MAVORS [/quote] hehe. Ya. The Mavor is the big boy. I could of funneled a lot of that income towards fatboys or a bunch of T3 units but Mavors I think illustrated the point I was

Reply to Losing a cap in a small game is too punishing. in Beta Feedback Sins Forums

Well, that is what I have been trying to tell you. It is NOT the same. Not in any way shape or form. You even said it yourself... the difference is scope. One is basically infinite and the other is not. This makes for very very DIFFERENT game play, not the same as you seem to allude to. And 250 units is NOT limiting. Not in the slightest. This is again because of how SupCom implements scope and epic scale in a different way. 250 tech level 4 units equals to the same cost as thousands