Hi, I'm new around here, and have only played Sins of a Solar Empire (Trinity) for a few months. This game has moved to the top of my list. I'm very excited to hear that another chapter is coming (Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion) and although I'm new, I wanted to share some things that my friends and I have agreed would be great enhancements in Diplomacy's successor. Here they are and I hope you like them.1. A no-fly zone option. Although we can define a path for ships to take when moving between gravity wells, sometimes we forget. This option would especially be useful for scouts when they are exploring, but pay no heed to the fact that their chosen path carries them through a pirate base or another faction's military base. and they end up getting destroyed as a result. This option would allow the player to select a gravity well and choose Restricted or Unrestricted. Something along those lines.2. An option to lock the panel so that the list doesn't jump. As ships phase in and out, the list on the left resizes, which often leads to misclicks. During a battle, the player is trying to click on ships in the list for targeting or special abilities. The list might jump before they click on the ship so they have to click again, or they click on a ship, choose the ability, and it jumps as they try to click another ship, so the wrong ship gets buffed or attacked. You get the idea. It also happens in non-combat situations while managing a gravity well. The option would prevent this jumpy behavior, locking the view on a particular gravity well, allowing for easier and more accurate empire control. In the current game, there are options to collapse gravity wells in the list which is great, but instead of having to collapse everything and then expand them again, this option would allow you to immediately lock the view, do what you need to do, and then unlock it to scroll through the list.3. There may be a good reason for this, but I notice that a planet supports 1 starbase, a wormhole supports 1, and a sun supports 4. I was wondering why not allow a wormhole to support 2? This would be a good progression (planet: 1, wormhole: 2, and sun: 4), but there may be a specific reason for not doing that. At the risk of critical reception, I wanted to suggest this. It would also challenge players who frequently travel via wormholes instead of stars. This is not a high hope, but just a thought. I'm honestly comfortable either way.More Radical Ideas:4. This is a suggestion coming from my friends and I wanted to include it because it would add another exciting element. Boarding ships. They would cost you an entire command crew (given the fact that they are designed to replace an enemy crew). The ship would allow forces to board a capital ship and take it over. It would not be instant as that would not be fair, but the ship would need to stay alive long enough to attach to the capital ship (so it would have high armor and hull points, but could be destroyed if the player hits it soon enough and with plenty of power). Once attached, it would take several minutes before the boarding party was either successful or not. If they are about to be successful, the narrator would inform the player: the boarding party has reached the bridge! The cap ship owner could either activate the self-destruct or not (with the idea of taking the ship back with their own boarding party). If the boarding party fails, the narrator would also inform: the intruders have been eliminated. Each capital ship could have a special ability or, better yet, military research for higher security (decreasing the chances of a successful takeover). Like Piracy, Ship Capture could be turned on and off in the pre-game options.5. Defined claims and restricted space with allies. This was another idea from my friends where the player could stake claim to worlds and their allies would leave those planets alone. The allies could, however, violate that agreement at the cost of reputation. Also, going hand in hand with this, you and I may be allied with a cease fire, but I may not want your ships in certain wells controlled by me, so I could define restricted space for a limited number of gravity wells. You may violate that, but again at the cost of reputation. Some AIs would honor this and others would not. It might be a good idea to limit how often claims/restrictions are allowed. For simplicity, these 2 suggestions could be merged into 1 option that allows any gravity well to be restricted.6. I don't expect this to be implemented, but I wanted to suggest it anyway. Perhaps something like this is planned and my idea gives you another idea or maybe an entirely different idea will be inspired by this. An Intelligence/Counter Intelligence screen. It would require research and, once researched, the player could send a spy to either gather information, destroy a specific facility, or take out a high profile target in order to hurt culture.Information that could be gathered includes ships currently in production, the empire's income/resource amounts, most frequently created ship, number of labs, completed research (to let the player know what research has not been completed, revealing weaknesses), locations of super weapons, and so on. I know that some of these can be determined by scouting, but it would be another method.The spy would not be cheap, the mission would require at least 15 minutes to complete, and have a high chance of failure which would be even higher if the enemy has done counter intelligence research on information, facilities, or high profile figures. The chance of success would be a little better if the factions are allied. It's a trade off - as allies, factions share the benefits of various pacts, but can also keep a closer eye on each other or secretly disrupt operations with a slightly greater chance of success. Once counter-intelligence research is completed, the Counter Intelligence screen would allow misinformation to be sent (with a chance of failure), facility security to be increased, and public figures to be better protected. If a spy is caught then there is a very small chance that they will tell the player who sent them, but still a chance. Like Piracy, Spying could be turned on and off in the pre-game options.Thank you for letting me share and thank you for bringing us Sins of a Solar Empire. I have no doubt that the next one will be as captivating as the current.
Lets see how you like that idea when a Vicious AI steals your lvl 10 capital ship.
Above all else, if they the Dev's can put an option into the game for limited resource points I would buy this game. As it is today, Sins is a fun sand box game but it isn't truly strategic until a true resource management is at play.
For crying out loud, resources are the heart of the wars sparked in this game's mythology! The market system would also benefit from this.
I hope the Dev's think about this hard! As I said, make it an option for those other players who believe otherwise!
What was the last real time strategy game you played that had limited resources? In my collection at least, ever since Rise of Nations almost every RTS I've played has decided to really limit your resource rate rather than the total resources, not the least because it really sucks when everything shuts down once you completely deplete everything.
Resource management is still the heart of Sins. Ever played a competitive 5v5 on ICO? Managing resources and knowing what to invest in is the heart of a good competitive player!
The fact that there are potentially unlimited resources does not make the game nonstrategic - it means that territory control becomes one of the most important aspects of the game, because territory primarily determines income.
Unlimited resources doesn't mean that you can build whatever you want because you'll always get more income later. On the contrary, it means that you need to know what best to build in response to what your enemy is building in order to not lose territory control (or to lose the income rate advantage). Strategy is a key component of Sins.
Starcraft 2
Need I say more?
True, it still exists somewhere, but I have to admit that I like knowing I have a cap, like in Empire Earth or Age of Empires, that really pushed me and other players to plan ahead, especially when we have low resource counts from the start.
I do have to say that I get both arguments. Taking nothing but Ice planets is a bad idea as you can't produce jack in the way of mineral and have to spend higher than average credits to balance things out. On the other hand, I also find it too easy in the mid-late game where I build such an economic giant that I can freely buy what I'm short on without much worry.
Perhaps a balance between the two? Conquest: Frontier Wars made it so that resources are easy to find, as they can be garnered from planets or asteroids/nebulae, but they moderated the resource cap and when a planet was depleted, it would slowly regenerate. This meant that you had to plan for an oncoming slow down, the degree of which is determined by the territory gained prior to said slow down. And the asteroids and nebulae provide you with a quick means to push ahead or make up some of the difference, especially if you dare to venture into enemy territory for collection. I always enjoyed that "You'll run down, but not out" method.
In this case it might also be good to make credits continue to be unlimited, but suffer from inflation based on the availability within your empire or the game as a whole and/or make the resources available on the market and their prices reflective of the available quantities.
That sort of thing only happens in noncompetitive games (eg. when playing AI). In real games against humans where players need to use good strategy to win, every 500 credits matters a great deal.
Similarly, in Starcraft, where there are limited resources, I often found myself with way more stuff near the end of the game than I knew how to deal with - but that was only because I was playing against the AI instead of against a human.
Regardless of the game, if one is playing bots, often times good strategy and careful monitoring of your economy is not all that necessary, simply because of the fact that AIs can rarely compare with humans.
cough fleet supply upkeep cough
I think we can all agree that fleet supply is crap in this game. A percentage of your income versus a flat per ship cost? So if I have 16 cobalts and make 100,000 creds a minute and my enemy has 16 cobalts and makes 50 creds a minute, my cobalts are magically coated in gold and thus cost that much more to maintain? It's a stupid design that will never allow you to get into a deficit, like a real military machine.
I've had these sorts of games with friends. That aside, I've played Conquest: Frontier Wars with friends and still managed to find the economics more challenging despite them being of a simpler build. I know this leans more toward an RTS, but if you want any semblance of a 4X, you have to expect some impressive aggravation behind the lines. That's what makes the Total War games fun in spite of being against an AI only in campaign games.
I for one think its the best thing since sliced bread. A very simple and easy way to reflect investing in the support infrustucture that one can assume is needed to keep your fleets going.
Just b/c you dont use all you fleet points doesnt mean you have not invested the manpower and machines to run it. You cant just layoff workers left and right...and shut down whole planets full of factories producing parts.
In some games, sure you can do that. But thats more 4x than alot of Sins player will ever care to play with.
Anyhow, Wraith has said it the best. Your limited resouces are you planets.Without them you got nothing.
I hope maybe planets will play a bit more importance credit wise in the future. Right now Trade Ports scale way to high.
Putting a dimishing return on trade port income would go far into curving the extra income found often mid to late game and increase the pressure fleet supply can bring when stuff hits the fan.
I care much more for gameplay value than for realism... and the gameplay of how fleet supply and upkeep costs work is fine as is, IMO.
Not that I would be that averse to changing it though. The strictly defined arbitrary numbers of "100" "250" "400" supply have never sat all that well with me.
I know what you're saying, but the maintenance of vessels, which only comes with making them, should add on top of the administrative components. Furthermore, upgrades should come with additional cost. In Total War, you have the cost of putting together the support structure, then recruiting the men, maintaining the men, and maintaining any upgraded weapons they use. I don't think it would be that hard to keep track of all that since one window would be able to put it into perspective and info cards can give you the 411 on total unit cost.
I won't argue that. Even with my example from Conquest, you need the planets to give you resources and curb the severity of the slow down.
Okay, so you do know what I mean when I bring up the credit issue. Mineral and crystal are never anything I complain of having too much of.
Same here. I'm not looking to correct the map designs and all, just tweak the economic system. It's not just about realism. I find it fun when I can run into a deficit and have to avoid that. Makes it a bigger challenge to fight the war.
Okay, so we agree there is room for improvement or at least some experimentation. Even if you keep the percentage aspect, it becomes more dynamic if you maybe add some of the ideas I throw out up in the first paragraph of this post.
And when talking about the ssytem, we can't just focus on SP or MP. The game was designed with both capabilities, so both have to be respected. Does this mean we'll get a perfect fix? Not really, but we can try to meet in the middle. After all, more people play SP, but MP offers a more vocal community.
However my issues with unlimited resource games is that the game strategies do not vary much. Build, upgrade, counter upgrade, turtle, attack and so on. With limited resources, the play style will encourage more aggressive and risk taking tactics. Rush and low tech strategies would have more usefulness too. Trading resources with other players or AI will become more meaningful and so on.Bottom-line, I would like to see this as an option for all those who think otherwise.
There are plenty of players (especially new players) who absolutely loathe how effective rushing in Sins already is. In most multiplayer games against decent opponents, you should be expecting to see your opponent start building up a large fleet to send to attack you as soon as possible - less than 5 minutes into the game, even. If you're looking for even more aggressive tactics I'm not sure what to tell you.
Very low tech strategies are already a staple of competitive games. Scout/Disciple spam, anyone? Players rarely go beyond the first two or three military labs.
Enabling limited resources would be an interesting twist on the game design, but wouldn't increase aggression/low tech spam much at all I think... and I'm not sure how many players would be interested in it (if anyone) so I'm not sure on the worthwhileness of the developers spending effort on this.
Point noted, but if the Dev's can't create a simple resource counter of said minerals and crystals amongst all the other developments, its pretty sad indication of the developer’s skills I my opinion.
To me, the concept itself has been well established, finding examples of how to implement should not be hard, so a small change with a big impact on the game itself is worth while to this potential buyer. After all, this is a sand box game, so having more options to customize a game scenario is would add to that objective.
The fact that the dev's haven't done this doesn't mean they lack the skills to implement it. Maybe they will introduce more options to further customize the way you play the game, who knows...
Have you heard of how long it took them to patch the Illuminator damage bug?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account