I dont think sins needs patterns or fleet divisions.

Its micro,  if u cant do it, learn. Its the best sisn feature. If u will have everything under 1 button , whats the point?

I dont see any reason to make it easier, micro options r perfect right now.

 

And no,  sins definitly dont need  another support crusers.

Those flaws is what distinguis races. If u  remove it whats the point heaving 3 of them?

Races needs strond amd week sides.  Its a team game, if u dont have what it takes, use your brain, think something new or ask teammate for help.

Democracy is terrible thing and unfortunately Marks was right. If peeps will have democracy they will happily introduce comunism. everything equal, everything easy everything common.

Dissgusting

 

Sins does not have micro, the most optimal way is just having all your ships (except capitals) in one huge fleet, or in case of more fronts, dividing all ships equally into more fleets, and there is only one way to do it. I dont see any tactical point or fun in always dividing one huge fleet into two smaller fleets manually, especially in multiplayer, when this repetitive but often needed task is a boring waste of valuable time, so everyone ends with just one big fleet in the end. Sins NEEDS at least something like GalCiv2 fleet manager, if not automatic fleet splitting (except capitals, that should always be manual).

 

And dont tell me you can do different tactical fleet patterns manually, especially with those arcing turns ships do. Its impossible.

 

The micro in Sins that I talk about (splitting one huge fleet into two or more equally, for example one attacking and one defending fleet) does not require any tactical game skill or experience, a 6 year old playing the game for the first few times can do it. It requires only high amount of boring time spent clicking on half the ships from every kind in a fleet (if you have 60 kodiaks in a fleet, you have to click 30 times to select the half, and that just one ship type) and then hitting create fleet, so you end with two equal fleets instead of one. Micromanagement must be about TACTICS, not boring clickfest, otherwise I can play said gaycraft.

The problem with Advent's weakness to shield bypass is that it gives Vasari an advantage against them that TEC does not have, and it's making it virtually impossible to balance the faction both for vs-Vasari and vs-TEC.  Because Vasari have a technology that disproportionately affects Advent, for balance reasons we need an Advent tech that disproportionately affects Vasari.

This doesn't mean an ability that specifically counters or disables shield bypass, but rather something whose utility and effectiveness is higher against shield bypass weapons.  For instance, an ability that boosts a frigate's damage output based on its current hull (lower hull = more damage) would work wonders.  This doesn't change the fact that shield bypass is still working, but it gives you an ability that's stronger when you're under its influence.

Similarly, the TEC faction is simply gimped late-game.  If you're not fielding armistice, you may as well throw in the towel, since Vasari and Advent have such superior battlefield control and you basically cannot field capital ships since they die so easily.  TEC needs new abilities to give it a stronger late-game presence and

I'd agree that Vasari doesn't really need anything currently.  I don't know why SivCorp talked about Vasari taking down starbases, because they definitely have an easier time than Advent in that regard due to phase missiles and nanos. However, if everyone else gets new content, Vasari should get something cool and new out of it as well.


I personally don't use the fleet system, so I'm not going to comment on the discussion regarding those features.

I never really bought the instantaneous upgrades to shields, hull, etc , especially when your fleet is far into enemy territory. How about a reequipping structure as a stand alone or integrated into the repair platforms?

Also I think it would be more realistic if you mined metal and crystal form the planet itself and not from 'asteroids' floating around the planet. If there were asteroids orbiting the planet, it should be farther away, possibly turned into a moon, both of which could be colonized etc.

What I think that would also add a strategic element is that resources would be stock piled on the planet they were mined from or sent to another planet via transport vessels, which could lead to capturing transports, and if you were to invade a planet, possibly gain a massive amount of resources if the player was stockpiling there. Also you should have resources on the planet to build structures, ships, or upgrade the planet.

sins does need a more intuitive and efficient fleet division system. as it stands i almost never bother to divide my forces because a) it's usually more effective to overwhelm enemies with a single large fleet (more of a balance issue) and hotkeys are inadequate for managing multiple diverse fleets, and the fleet mechanic is absurdly buggy; ships join fleets without being asked to and passively move to "reform fleet" which ruins any positioning i've set up.

meticulously distributing ships is not micro, it's manual organization

That sounds unfair. What if your system only has one entry point? you wouldn't be able to a enter their system at all. which would be bad if it's their home system.

Add larger environments around the planets discs when RAM is unlocked.

The game would be much better off having orbital envirnments that required ships to actually navigate and srategise around the planets outer features before moving in. Right now its just the biggest fleet wins after jumping in and engaging immediately.

I think the campaign is almost a must if the game is to sell.

I have also always wanted an intermediate cruiser class between capital size and kodiak size.

 

Admirals - like in conquest frontier wars. They buff a fleet with skills while boarding a flagship

Ground Assaults - nuking a planet from orbit gets boring... send the marines in  

Turrets- now that the ram limit is gone

Deep space hidey holes - late game ability to attack a planet from 

Z axis tactics - i guess this would be pointless if the disc format is kept

Bring back orbits and newtonian ship physics

Add Star Ruler engine and subsystem features.... allowing each ship to be designed in a modular way.

A new race - the story of the race that is hunting the other race down. They could even be noble. 

Ship supply systems and ships like in conquest frontier wars

Much more character like in starcraft.... 

Improve blockade runners and diplomatic ships

Make ships more appealing. Only the capital ships currently look any good at all to me. 

Perhaps a modular system allowing people to build their own ships

Improve diplomacy even more

If Z axis fleet formations would be usefull esp if that formation gave the squadron in formation a special group skill. Like shield umbrella protection.

A map type that make combat and tactics more important than never ending sieges.

Allow ships to land on the planets surface or blockade runners perhaps that evacuate the planet

Enable transport of armies/marines to take planets - bombardment means starting from scratch this does not

Allow marine capture frigates - although i think something similar is currently in place as a skill

Allow sieging of planets that involves starving\blockade to have an effect on gameplay instead of nuking everything

Allow some enemy techs to be captured if a planet with that tech falls, making certain planets improtant.

Allow a deep space RACE that does not use planets.... a sort of fleet based race that bases itself in a fleet like battlestar and roams to planets stealing resources.... or better yet a race that builds massive bases in deep space that creates its own gravity well.Sort of like military bases that are central to a planetary system to protect it.

A campaign would be great though.... I really have to get stuck in an play another game of this sometime in the weekend. Its been so long since vanilla.

Alien infestations and other random events. Some perhaps planted by espionage.

Permanent cloaked spies you can send to a planet.

Limited ammunition requiring supply

a video clip of ship launches? maybe not just thinking what immerses in space.

Random NPC encounters and trades.... that would be super cool

What I'd like to see would be thus:

 

Military:

 

• Logistics ships
• Capital ship carrier with instantaneous well to well travel capability so long as the well is explored (the idea originated AFAIK by the author of Star Strike, pseudonym Ian Douglas)
• Boarding party craft, capable of hijacking ships, space stations, and otherwise allowing for the capture of enemy structures (and perhaps associated technology). (this also from Ian Douglas, Robert Heinlein, and the Roman Republic's usage of land soldiers to board enemy ships and kill/capture the crew.)
• Modular weapons, allowing for incorporation of enemy weapons onto existing ships.
• Targeting systems, allowing for the disabling of enemy vessels rather than complete destruction.
• More control over default ship formations.
• A protocol whereby damaged ships are either surrounded by friendly vessels in order to increase the probability of survival or, if the engines are undamaged as of yet, have it retreat to the rear of the combat formation to also increase the probability of survival.

Civilian:

 

• Cruise ships, basically, similar to the Tulip/Transutopia of StarHunter 2300.
• Bounty Hunters, single ship bounty hunters paid to go after pirates and other criminal vessels.
• Private Merchant Vessels, which could basically be like the trade ships except with more geometric variety than the  June-Bug shape.
• Commercial transport vessels, like buses in space allowing for civilians to travel through space to other worlds without having to be signed aboard a colony ship or in the employ of a trade ship.
• Space Elevators, which would allow resources to be gathered from the planet instead of merely from asteroids.
• Orbital greenhouses, allowing for food to be produced in the virtually infinite surface area of space.
• Orbital colonies, which would be like the centrifugal ring shaped structure in Space 2001, allowing for more civilians to be taxed, population to grow faster, and if the planet suffers losses from orbital bombardment faster regrowth of population.

Scientific:

 

• Optical and Radio space telescopes, allowing for better surveillance as well as presentation of physical targets to disable such surveillance.
• Robotic space probes, they've been around since the middle of last century in real life, so why not have these as an option instead of sending out manned Arcova scouts and their alien counterparts?

Astronomical:

 

• Some planets ought to have moons, like Earth's moon type of moon, and not just asteroids.
• An actual asteroid belt would be good.
• Gas Giants ought to have more satellites.
• Some star systems ought to be binary star systems.
• ETC.

I think turrets should be thrown in when ram limits are removed

And perhaps a real Z axis with wider populated planetary disks. Perhaps some grav wells having two planets.

 

I dearly want a cruiser class below capitals but above kodiaks in size. You should be able to group these and use them as capital hunter killer squadrons. More expensive to make but less population requirement than caps.

and orbiting dammit

 

How about weapons that we can set a target priority for. For example we could tell the Star Base to target torpedo cruisers first then switch to its secondary target, etc.

The interface for this could be really easy and it could look really good. When you select a ship it brings up a schematic with all the weapons highlighted and listed. Next to the weapon is a drop down list for each priority level and an option as to whether or not you want a group command to overide the target priority. Example: I have a large fleet that I select as a group to attack a capital ship but I want my Cobalt frigates to continue disabling the reactors on different capital ships so when I get finished with the first ship the next ones will still be around for me to attack.

Initially this may seem a little complicated but if the settings are saved under the player name then you would only need to do it once excpet for the occasional tweak. There could also be a check box to make the settings permanent or not, this way you could change it for one game then it would revert back for the next game.

If Ironclad sticks to the philosophy that they had for vanilla sins, and carry that mentality to the development of a sins II, It will be a great game. This game has infinite replayability as far as I'm concerned. Much of the time if I start to become bored its a sense of "Oh I hate this faction I've been playing as". And upon switching, I still get a charge of playing one of the other factions. However, two adjustments have to be made. Many of these ideas posted are good ideas, however two are essential to the profitability of a successor.

 

Optimization. I can not describe how many times I've put up sins angrily because of slow-downs late in the game. I have a high-end gaming rig, and I know that if I receive slow downs, the average gamer will also. Running the game smoothly is the most important.

 

First Time Player Interaction. Many people's opinions are formed within the first few hours, if not minutes, of playing a game. I have recommended this game to several friends, who dismiss it as to complex. The tutorials presented are stand-off and basic when compared to the overall picture. A story could really help here. Many games have a tutorial integrated with a story. So its "quick fortify this position because XYZ" rather then "build a starbase so we can show you some numbers and charts change, but don't worry there's no attack coming."

 

Improvement of Online Experience. Playing the computer only takes you so far. The online portion of games, in many cases, is where the long term value lies. I've only visited ICO on a few occasions. Honestly, it feels cold, clunky, and impersonal. It was almost an intimidating experience. It just gave me an awkward online experience. I'd propose a model based on a RTS I'm familiar with, Warcraft III. The experience is much easier. Custom map that I don't have? Not a problem, I can instantaneously download it. Also, there's the previously mentioned experience gaps where players of lesser experience are taken advantage of. At least in WC3 there are ladders for the pros, and many times the community is more honest by posting titles indicating that the games are geared to the more experience. So it is our responsibility to welcome new players in as well!

 

So, I know we all want these new features, but I really would like to see Ironclad standout and perform well in the industry. It's necessary that they stick with their same fantastic visions while using their creativity to make a great product! In doing so, don't forget the casual market and the first time gamers. They are the most important to the success of the franchise, not the few dedicated fans that are here. Not to devalue our worth, as a dedicated community, just speaking what I think has to happen.