I have come across several posts on these forums where Single Player-only people say that they want a better AI and that they would not mind playing agains other human players in principle but don't want to suffer the company of Jerks on ICO. (Perhaps they logged on a few times and had a bad experience.) It's a shame that a concern about jerky immature kids prevents people from playing onlne.
I have two solutions to this problem. (1) If you're interested, I know of a small group of folks who schedule private direct connect-to-IP games around 10:30 pm U.S. Eastern Standard Time (or 7:30 pm Pacific Time). This group is seeking new members for games that use Normal speed settings and the Bailknights graphics improvement and the Sins Plus mods. PM me if you're interested and I'll send you to the right person. (2) We could establish a committee-managed Grown Adult Players Club on ICO (which would also be for teens who qualify).
Here is my idea. A list of people who are members of the club will be established and maintained. On Ironclad Online, you would add these people's names to your Friends List for your Club name account. (It would need to be updated for the addition of new members and the removal of members.) Club members would only be allowed to use a single name for Club gaming purposes and they wouldn't add other people to their Friends List--club members only for the Club player name. There would be rules about bad behavior and a discipline system. Games on ICO would be set up using the "Friends Only" option so that only other club members could join. I could also set up a private discusson forum for this.
How does that sound? Would you play online if you could join an exclusive mature players only club? The club could also be expanded to have different leagues and different friends lists based on skill if it ever picked up enough players.
Even if stardock upgrades it is system, the game has to also adapt with it, theren't any plans to do it...probably with diplomacy they might introduce the system, but I won't bet on it
Well the Ready to Play feture for Impulse will allow fellow minded gamers to meet up for a game. So those of us who like a long game can find those who like long games too. Start one up, save it and know we can find each other again to finish it up.
And I think Ironclad realizes this as well. The improved diplomacy options in the expansion are almost entirely aimed at single player FFAs; I can't see any real benefit whatsoever to games with locked teams, unless they require a technology to send resources to stop early feeding.
That's exactly right. We're still balancing which tier said tech will be, but it's definitely going to be one of the new diplomacy techs.
i would agree to this one too!.
Single players always seem to want "Epic" games on normal speed, long games, big fleets.
Ive seen a few on ICO that wanted that type of game play, but no one else wanted so, maybe he quit already. lol, he sounded pretty disappointed when he got rushed.
But anyways.... "epic" game??? naaah... In my opinion, a long game isn't Epic. its just sooooo boring. I prefer playing short game where theres lots of conflict in the beginning where everyone suffers from low amount of resources.
And you have to choose either you will want to spend your resource to research, or to make more fleet. I find the early game the most fun.,, And epic.
I don't know if Diplomacy will catch on for the online game, but I can see this aspect of it becoming very controversial. Some people will like this aspect of it and some won't. I guess I've always wondered how metal and crystal could magically travel across vast distances of space almost instantaneously. Perhaps we'll find out how that actually happens in Diplomacy.
Lets see what happens before casting judgement on Diplomacy.
The only criticism I have towards Stardock at this point is that in the past, there have been companies who have released content like Entrenchment for all players for free before. I mean, it is $10 - but that $10 of our cash. I suppose that I shouldn't complain - I only recently bought the game on the weekly Impulse buy with Entrenchment for about $20US.
As for what is epic? That is entriely subjective. To me, epic means a very challenging game requiring days worth of play and truly colossal battles with very intelligent AI - in essence, a war on a massive scale with many, many battles and lots of units. Naturally, for that to happen, the allegiance system will have to be redone, so will the supply and resource system. I'm thinking thousands, if not tens of thousands of units here. (Beyond that is probably beyond the human capacity to manage, although the fleet system is innovative. I hope that the fleet system can be imporved on).
Who has released a full expansion pack for free? Sometimes companies release things like new units, like Total Annihilation did, but I think it is pretty rare for a company to release an entire expansion pack with new game mechanics, units, techs, and features for free. $10 is not much money....it is the cost of going out and buying lunch. If you look at how many hours of entertainment you get from a game like Sins, it is not much at all.
No, $10 isn't that much, but compared to the DLC you'll get from something like fallout 3... you get VERY LITTLE bang for your buck for Entrenchment/Diplomacy. A few new units, a bit more tech.
Most games, when they release DLC, end up adding whole new gameplay areas/types, etc, enough to add 5-10 more hours of gameplay to a singleplayer. Granted, Sins isn't a singleplayer so you can't really just add new "areas," but point being, we're essentially paying for what is a "patch" in the sense of a minor gameplay tweak.
A couple new units? A bit new tech? TRADITIONALLY SPEAKING, that kind of thing was always free for PC games. It was only when you got a new single player campaign, or huge changes, that you paid for DLC.
How do you figure THAT?!! Thats pure BS!
I got tons of bang for my buck with Entrenchment. Hours & hours of additional play for that measly 10 bucks. Entrenchment was/is like a whole new game! Very worthwhile!
I also expect Diplomacy will be equally worth the meager $10. I can't believe you are even bitching about it.
You forget the BIGGEST PART OF ENTRENCHMENT- the GIANORMOUS NEW MODDING OPTIONS!!!!!
Seconded; long games usually end up being huge stand-offs culminating in a single decisive fleet battle. Hardly epic, more anticlimatic. Heck, my last long multistar game ended when I fired my first novalith pair to take down one of the homeworlds at about the 2-hour mark. Set of a chain reaction quit
First, you don't even know exactly what is in the Diplomatic expansion, so don't prejudge. Second, Entrenchment changed the way the game played. They made game engine changes to support the new features. A lot of expansion just tack a few things on to the game, which is fairly easy by comparison, you just have to worry about balance. I'm not sure what you consider a minor gameplay tweak because you neglected to give examples of your wonderful free content. If you play one game of Sins and say, "Well, I just saw starbases and mines, I'm done" then maybe the game isn't for you...people who love the replay value of Sins get a lot of bang for their buck for $10 to have features added to the game..
I bought entrenchment because I got Sins for around $25. Yeah, I like entrenchment. But if I hadn't gotten sins for so cheap, I never would have bought it. It wasn't that game-changing overall. Defense became a lot easier, and you had to be more careful when assaulting.
But overall, the game didn't change much. And I paid nearly half as much for Entrenchment as I did for Sins itself.
In any case, it's not "BS." I might feel that way, clearly you don't. We have different opinions. It's not "BS" at all that I feel this way, same as you.
Which should have been in Sins to begin with. Or put in a patch.
If you've read my posts, you'll see that I've been saying, "Based on what we've seen," not "It is going to be this way." They haven't given us much, so I've been going by what I've seen, and I'm not impressed. Sure, that might change. It also might not.
Yeah, Entrenchment is pretty much Starbases and Mines. Don't get me wrong, it's cool and all, but it didn't break up the formula.
Lots of (PC) games have gotten free DLC. Lots of franchises have released free map packs, sometimes new features. All free. The UT franchise is a good example. The new Batman game is getting free DLC. I could get into specifics, but this isn't about free DLC, it's about paid DLC, and getting your money's worth.
Take the Starcraft: Brood War expansion... it added quite a few new units, which changed the way people strategized dramatically.
Sins didn't change much with Entrenchment, except maybe for people who do a ton of micro-ing, which I don't. Basic formula: colonise to get more resources, build up big fleet, crush enemy.
The only real change starbases introduced was slowing it down a bit, or making it much easier to defend areas. By the time I'm building starbases, I can build one anywhere and max it out and usually have plenty of cash left over. So it becomes a lazy way for me to build defense on a place.
And I just build bigger fleets to compensate for starbases, or if they aren't the kind that move around, attempt to just avoid the bases.
Bottom line, you don't like Sins that much, and this is fine. Sins added a respectable amount of content for $9.95.
Brood War expansion cost $29.95 when it came out and had 7 new units. It was discounted by major retailers, of course, but for those of us who had our pre-orders waiting on the day it came out, we paid near full price. Brood War had a new campaign, which is why it was so expensive. The new structures and options in Sins change the dynamics of the game just like Brood War did to Starcraft...for those of us who play multiplayer it changed the dynamics of the game quite a bit. You probably would need a bit more challenge to change your relaxing playstyle.
By all means don't buy Diplomacy -- as with Entrenchment, it probably won't change the way you play. But please, don't compare a $30 Blizzard expansion with a $10 Ironclad micro-expansion. Your Kung Fu is weak.
I like Sins plenty. I have played it dozens of hours. But i don't want to pay for what I see as horse armor
And Blizzard's expansion is a fair comparison, if you ignore the sizes of the companies. Combining Entrenchment and Diplomacy, that's $20, pretty close to the original Brood War price. And I spent $25 on Sins to begin with. Yeah, that wasn't the original price-point for Sins, but it's the one that made me finally bite.
My first $25 bought me a brand new game, which was a lot of fun, and challenging. My next $10 bought me starbases and mines. And the next $10?
Well, we don't know. A lot of my complaints still hinge on "Ironclad hasn't said much." They've now put it up for sale without really releasing information on WHAT is for sale, and I find that vaguely insulting. "Give us your money, and then we'll tell you what you're buying."
I'm sure information is coming shortly. But this just has been poorly executed on Ironclad/Stardock's part.
You keep thinking that.
But you can't ignore the size of the companies. That's definitely a factor.
Sure, Ironclad has way fewer staff, and probably lower profit margins. That explains charging more for less.
It doesn't explain why the PR has been so hush hush. Why on earth would they put it up for sale without even giving a decent preview or description of exactly what we're getting?
They don't charge more for less. They charge less for less. It is up for pre-order so the people who want it can buy it. Go check the other threads where people are all excited.
I would suggest more positive thinking on two issues:
1. 10$ is not that much money (unless you've had Lehman shares). Let's assume you've had 100 hours fun playing Entrenchment, that would boil down to an investment of 10 cents per hour of fun. Try to get that ratio at a fast food restaurant, at a bowling hall, squash court or whatever you else like doing... you won't.
2. I can think of two reasons why there is silence around diplomacy and its features:
a) IC knows how desparately the community is awaiting this expansion set (as it is quite obvious with all these diplomacy threads in the forum). They do not need to advertise and release it with a big bang that will astonish the community.
IC will prevent the community from pre-judging the expansion set without even having played. "Experts" around here are quick with judments about balance, useless features and missing things. Avoiding that the community is tearing it to schreds before its even out, they keep the details to themselves.
Because it won't be out for another year. Or close enough to that. Anyone who wants an early glimpse can buy the beta and the rest of us can wait and hear about it once they've refined it down to what's more or less going to be in the actual release.
Au contrair, the silence is making a number of people (obviously myself included, but I've seen others) far more disinterested in Diplomacy.
And as far as it not being out "for another year," they're planning on having the beta start far sooner than that, and they have a lot more locked in place than you suggest.
read my thing above yours. we covered this.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
