This is essentially a "laundry list" of things I need to see fixed to make Rebellion a must-buy, and as such you're welcome to add your own, with solutions if possible. Some of these are partially referenced in "5 things you wish to see in Rebellion" (https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/408935) but I thought I'd just expand on what's in that thread. I am aware that some of these improvements are only slated for Sins 2 (whenever that comes out), but IMO unless the Sins 2 engine is a DRASTIC leap forward in terms of image quality and performance, then Ironclad are better off sticking with the current engine and upgrading it incrementally.
As a consummate lurker, I won't be posting any further in this thread, but I will be checking up on it from time to time. Go forth and flame!
Issues:
1. When I have 16 capships that I tell to attack a starbase from across a gravwell, invariably half of them will bunch up around the starbase, and the remainder will bump up against that half trying to get close enough to the starbase to attack it. This also applies to ships that are set to Group Jump.
2. AI going bat sh*t insane laying literally hundreds of mines in a gravwell it occupies, which have to be cleaned out after I take over that gravwell. I want to spend my time blowing up enemy ships, not minesweeping.
2.1. AI refusing to colonise an unoccupied planet with enemy mines in its gravwell, unless EVERY LAST ENEMY MINE is destroyed. Compounded by the fact that AIs are also incapable of clearing said mines themselves, meaning *I* have to do minesweeping duties for them as well.
2.2. Scout frigates being used in minesweeper role do not go after mines logically (e.g. target only the closest mine) but sometimes decide to wander off after a completely random mine on the other side of a gravwell. Due to the behaviour mentioned in (2), this often results in said frigate plowing directly through the minefield you've asked it to sweep, which makes the frigate go boom and me unhappy.
2.3. Mines are phased out, not invisible, which means when I ask my ships to travel through a hostile minefield, they should do their level best to avoid as many mines as possible.
3. Ridiculous ship turning circles. When I order a moving capship to turn 180 degrees, it should not traverse a massive arc to achieve this. Especially if that arc causes the ship to blunder through a minefield.
4. Starbase experience points are fixed at 400 regardless of how many upgrades the starbase does or doesn't have.
5. Multi-threading is not used effectively, if at all, with the result that my almost-ancient QX9650 never hits 100% on a single core with Sins running, never mind pushing the remaining cores. There's no excuse for this in 2011.
6. Sharing experience is good, but capships at max level should not receive experience points they cannot use. For example, if I have a level 1 capship and a level 10 capship, and both those ships destroy a target worth 100 points, each ship gets 50 points - when it would make more sense for the level 1 ship to get all 100 points and the level 10 ship to receive none.
7. Starbases should be able to level up like capships.
8. Pathfinding should not just take the LENGTH of the route into consideration, but also the SAFETY of the route. When I tell my ships to travel to a friendly gravwell 3 jumps away, and the shortest route is through an enemy gravwell, they must NOT choose that route unless there is no other option.
Solutions:
1. Make ships able to effectively maneuver in 3D space, i.e. go above/below each other. Add ship formations (e.g. Wall from Homeworld way back in 1999).
2. Fix the AI. Make mines invisible as well as phased out by default. Make scout frigates able to reveal all mines in a gravwell when they enter it, this will discourage enemy fleets from phasing in without doing recon. Add a researchable, intrinsic ability to minelaying frigates that allows them to detect enemy mines and "reprogram" them to your faction's cause.
3. When I order a ship to turn 180 degrees, it must either (a) lower its speed while performing the turn, so the resultant arc is smaller or ( switch off its engines, rotate on its axis, and restart its engines - whichever scenario achieves the fastest turnaround.
4. Starbase experience points should start at 400 and increase by, say, 50 points each time an offensive/defensive upgrade is installed. That means a fully-upgraded starbase will be worth 800 experience, which more accurately represents the challenge it takes to down one with such upgrades.
5. Thread the engine if this has not already been done. Threading will hinder debugging and require synchronisation, which increases overhead, but the throughput gained from increased parallelism will be dramatic. If the engine is well-threaded, refactor the threading code to more effectively split operations to cores so that the load is more equally balanced between them. This should also solve the late-game lag problem.
6. Prevent capships from receiving experience points when they reach the level cap.
7. Allow starbases to receive experience/share it with capships, but cap them at a lower level cap (e.g. 5) to prevent them from becoming too powerful.
8. Safety should be considered before length of journey, unless the player has explicitly Shift+clicked to set the route.
You will be disappointing I think, at least on number 5.
This is already fixed in the latest version of Diplomacy.
Starbases level like they do because the Devs realized that they didn't like players being able to max out their capitalships. They wanted to force the player to make a strategic decision about what they wanted that starbase to do. Thus you are forced to specialize your starbases, if you need a starbase as a frontline defense, you shouldn't be putting trade ports on it no matter how many resources you have.
Also if Starbases required experience they would be useless late game once the fleets get so large that a new starbase can be destroyed by 1 or 2 bomber passes. Requiring resources makes it difficult for Starbases to be too strong and the beginning (at least without sacrificing other areas you could be spending resources on) while keeping them useful late game.
Cap ship maneuvering in a threatening grav well can be micromanaged to avoid catastrophe. You can see this as a bug or a feature depending on how you view it. It personally bugs me as a feature.
I love your mine ideas and mines is something Blair has already said they are working on--so maybe.
There is some ability to maneuver 3D via the Z-axis key but it isn't often used. The issue is for every "layer" you add to the 2d gravity well, you create a greater need for more defenses, cover, etc. and increase the cpu load doing so. Plus the AI gets confused sometimes. I'd like them just to remove the Z-axis key while leaving the movement as is. There was a Dynamic motion mod that utilized this better but it is outdated now I believe and the AI had issues knowing how to utilize it sometimes.
I think you should get more points for upgrades on starbases killed and that might happen in Rebellion. Have to wait and see.
The capships leveling makes some sense. Maxed caps are still doing part of the killing and so it isn't the same experience a lone cap would have.
I like all of your mine suggestions.
As to AI movement safety, it would be nice if we had expanded ship movement/formation orders. As in, "attack like an
AI siege frigate" (moving around static defense guns) or "only skirt edge of gravity well". Even, "maximize distance via Z-axis" and 'attack from maximum Z-axis range". Lot of possibilities there.
Lol...ignore my avatar.
My biggest problem is the performance of the current game.
I have an I7 processor with top end graphics card as well as 18gb ram and if I play a big map and play for a fairly long time it starts to slow down to what i regard as unplayable.
This isn't just my computer, it happens to my mates and my uncles. Not to mention my old computer which wasn't too shabby either.
This to me is the biggest drawback of the game
SINS is very beautiful when you crank up all the graphics settings but thats all you can do and after 25 mins your in lag zone.
What they have done for rebellion is make an even better shader system, particles etc which means the system requirements are even higher this time. The worst part of all this is the game is still going to run on a single CPU core so its best to have an overclocked rig up to 4GHz or more. Sadly that's impossible for many of us.
There is hope: On low settings the game could perform better than diplomacy on low settings but that's just speculation for now.
In that case i'll pass on this and hope when they release Sins 2 that they address this programming flaw.
Yeah--im thinking the same thing. I might pass this one and play all the other rts coming out. Its not cool for the people who have i7 rigs and still face problems playing the game at low settings.
If they haven't announced work on the SOASE II engine yet, it's most likely not in progress so we are all stuck with the same fundamental engine for diplomacy.
I particularly hate diplomacy for the simple reason that when you have 4v4 with locked teams the *(^&*% AI teammates at some point in the game decide to F* you off when an enemy is attacking your planet. By "F* you off" I mean they refuse to attack them or it turns out they have some standing with them and are peaceful. IDIOTIC!
If you're playing with locked teams, AI players will not form ceasefires or peace treaties with enemies. They will always be at war with those designated as their enemies at the start of the game.
If you want to tell an AI to attack something, select one of the AI's units and you can then give the AI an "attack this planet" order.
People don't seem to understand just how hard multi-threaded programming is. It's not something that can be patched in by just anyone. It is HARD. Very, very, very hard. It takes years of experience specifically working with writing, debugging, and testing multithreaded applications to be good at it. Multithreaded applications can produce race conditions which cause crashes, desynchs, data corruption, and any of a host of issues, and the best part is these issues can be unreproducible outside of particular hardare combinations when running particular background software applications. It has the potential to absolutely ruin the game engine and require a huge amount of development time for a trivial amount of gain, if any.
Also, to the OP:
If you're not fully utilizing a single core, then going multithreaded adds nothing whatsoever; you'd just be going from one underutilized core to two underutilized cores. You're complaining that your car doesn't have an extra set of fully functional wheels on the hood of the vehicle. It just makes the care more prone to breaking, it blocks your vision, and does nothing to improve performance or roadworthiness.
You have to remember something--no matter what they do--the AI will always be retarded compared to human players. If you've reached the point where you're tired of seeing the AI suicide itself on starbases, waste money on its own starbases, mismanage its capital ships so that you can easily destroy them, and other strategically dumb things, then you might be ready to advance to learning the real Sins game--online multiplayer against human players without AIs. If you start playing against other people on Ironclad Online, you're liable to lose interest in playing against AI quickly.
Your car analogy is wrong. The difference in performance is not determined by the number of wheels but by the engine. There is a difference between a 4 cylinder pistons engine, a 6 cylinder pistons V6 , 8 -V8 aka Range Rover , 12 - V12 aka Ferrari Enzo and a 16 cylinder piston W16 Bugatti Veron
It will cost them about $200k/yr ( $50k/yr per game engineer) or more for a team of 4 to make a multi-threaded engine. It could then take 2 to 4 years to finish the work which means your looking at figures above half and million dollars just for the engine.Its that bad and we get it that they don't have the money (or do they) but the time for research and concept should have been three years ago. Its not a matter of ingenuity but of hiring talent to finish the engine in a shorter time. We didn't exactly want a 4 threaded engine but 2-3 is also fine. Cry-sis launched with 2 core effect support and 4 as a bonus. One core is not sufficient esp being 3 years down the road after the initial sins release and you would expect something to change other than the cosmetics and balancing.
Whats more complicated is the actual benefit which is limited by system bottle-necks where a good cpu is worthless without a good gpu plush ram and selling to high end users means you have to spend a hell of alot on marketing to let them know but sacrifice the entry users which could be a bust for profit.
Surprisingly bio-ware just went ballistic with Command and Conquer generals 2 by using frostbite 2: Consequences of this are a high end game: dx11 with GPU accelerated physics and Multi-core support for cpu. They are releasing this game in 2013 yet they is already a trailer. Imagine that while Sins still has nothing to offer. They are marketing the hell out of generals two years early!
Should Sins Licence an engine?
@Riddleking WHY is one core not sufficient? You spent an awful lot of words still not answering the core question. WHY should SoaSE be made multi-threaded? IronClad shouldn't be spending millions on a useless bulletpoint. The OP already demonstrated that multi-threading would have zero benefit for his system as SoaSE is already using less than a full core's worth of processing power. You resort to multi-threading when the CPU load is exceeding the capacity of a single core, not "just because its modern." If you're demanding that developers spend incredible amounts of time and money on features, it would be nice if you could explain what benefit it will bring the title.
Multithreading would be useful for Sins if users often used low-end dual+ core CPUs / bad graphics cards... but those interested in playing intensive games like this one usually have computers relatively capable of running it on a single core.
Ships/starbases already manoeuver in 3D space... look at http://www.love-from-russia.be/g4_swarm-6.25_million_poly.avi
[quote who="RiddleKing" reply="5" id="3042145"]SINS is very beautiful when you crank up all the graphics settings but thats all you can do and after 25 mins your in lag zone.What they have done for rebellion is make an even better shader system, particles etc which means the system requirements are even higher this time. The worst part of all this is the game is still going to run on a single CPU core so its best to have an overclocked rig up to 4GHz or more.
Shader use the GPU, not the CPU... and GPU was never a problem with sins... in fact, for a lot of game, new shader version mean new hardware accelerated function at disposal and improvment in render time...
It is say that memory ( famous 2gb limit ) and CPU are the problem... well, it is somehow true but not fully related to the game... in my case, i can go over the 2gb limit ( 3.5gb in the screenshot below ) and/or a heavy game never use 100% from a core ( in the same screenshot, 6% of 2 processor with 4 core at 2.66ghz, it is 48% of a single core )... this without hacking the game, original version... only change the layer running below the application, the thing called a OS...
What thinking the same thing during my Navy time when i was in the Golf during the first war... by the way, in the case of sins, the max limit of mines in a gravity is well below hundred... the only way to have hundred or more mines is that other player have lay mines there too...
Limit is 150 per gravity well....maybe you are thinking of a modded or older version?
A lot of people I think forget about this...when sins came out, getting cheap dual/quad cores was common, particularly for people doing lots of stuff with sound and video....
My concern is why Stardock didn't multi-thread Sins...given the inherent costs and disadvantages, I think they made the right choice, but I'm still curious as to their exact reasoning...
I mean, if a game clearly does not need multiple cores to run properly, then it's not worth the resources to multi-thread the game....but what if Sins really could have utilized multi-threading? Would they have upped the ante and multi-threaded the game, or would they have just said "screw it, we're too small and can't afford it"....
It matters to me at least because future titles from Stardock almost certainly will benefit from multi-threading, and it would be a shame if the devs chose not to pull off a multi-threaded game when multiple-core CPUs are the norm, not the exception....
i have a an 8GB RAM computer with a 1680x1050 monitor with 64-bit graphics. i play sins with maxed out graphics. i have no problem with lag until i own 2 solar systems worth (about 60-70 planets) and have all my planets litterally TEEMING with trade ships from about 3-4 trade ports per planet, including starbases on every planet as the TEC with max trade ports on them (playing a cheat-like version: weak enemy, easy beginning spread for your empire). and even then i never result in lag from massive fleet battles, like an overstocked pirate base (Galaxy Forge 10x Pirate Template) vs my 30 caps and 1500 frigates and cruisers with god know how many strike craft. it wont lag. i think your all whining about nothing. no offense tho, i do understand some older comps have major problems running it.
I hope you realize your 'quote' of me doesn't contain a comment I have made. It was something I quoted from the guy that made this post. I am not complaining about lag at all. I play on a Macbook Pro @2.2 Ghz i7 processor (with 8GB RAM) and all graphics maxed out.
Just to rectify your rather unusual error. Also try to keep in mind that not everyone that plays this game runs it on a high end machine like you do.
Worst Flaw in Game:
1. Fix the Empire Tree
Problem: The Empire Tree is unstable. Early game, it is convenient to use because when you select select something to issue orders, it positions that selection on top of the tree. However, it isn't long until this becomes a disruptive process. Once you have several planets and fleets deployed, the Empire Tree becomes unmanageable by virtue of the "jump to selection" feature. For example; when ANY new ship jumps into ANY of your currently occupied grav wells, or travels in ANY phase lane (and this could very well be 15-20 or more), it causes the Tree to reposition, often wildly. During large fleet battles, this actually inhibits every aspect of its designed benefits which is to allow you to: designate & group multiple ships, view opposing fleet composition characteristics (relative armor & dps), issue targeting and maneuvering orders for specific fleets in their respective grav wells.
This is undoubtedly a significant impairment to the game. It becomes virtually impossible to utilize under these conditions.
(btw, pinning the tree doesn't solve this).
Solution:
1. Enable a HOT KEY to toggle the Empire Tree from a "jumping" panel to a fixed panel that could be manually scrolled to access different ships and planets. This would provide the convenience of early game "auto-propagation", and the ability to "freeze" the Empire Tree Panel to avoid the brain damaging affects of such a critical annoyance this nuisance becomes in later game situations.
-or-
2. Develop an entirely new game within a game based on whack-a-mole.
or trim the tree. I automatically have it so nothing more than fleets and starbases (which is not an option) auto-pin. The only expansion is systems I have selected, which I tell the tree to hide the contents of. I stack the fleets so frigates add little. I upgrade then un-pin the starbases. So in the end, I have less than half the height of the screen utilized for the tree. If I wanted to pin a production planet, I still keep its contents hidden and just select the planet as a whole for production purposes.
No planet behind the front lines needs to be pinned unless it's a production planet. Planets on the front lines are best accessed by the spacebar to start. As you discover planets, hide the contents, seeing that the empire tree gives you little useful info on enemy forces.
And, while I can see how your method works for your style, your explanation of what can only be considered a work-around does not diminish the fact that the Empire Tree lacks the essential ability to be a fixed panel that could tremendously improve gameplay. You are most likely stacking fleets in an effort to mitigate the amount of "jumping" the Tree does.
However, especially in multiplayer, the Empire Tree could be highly beneficial in conducting combat engagements if it were not so dynamically disposed to be a moving target that thwarted even maximum efforts to utilize it.
I hope you are just offering your input on how to put up with the Tree as it is, and not trying to promote or suggest that it's preferable to stack fleets because you really don't need to see individual ship health, enemy armor, and dps because that would be very hard to understand why anyone would defend and make excuses for this obvious and glaring flaw.
Didn't say anything one way or another about whether or not it can be improved, but some people seem genuinely lost regarding how to minimize the tree in the options menu or on the fly.
And you can keep the stats visible if you wish and just disable auto-pinning. If you have a fleet selected, it will automatically throw up a well's composition, pinned or otherwise, allowing you to get all that info. Then again, I can also put my cursor over the enemy ships on the screen, seeing that I should be micro-managing my fleet and thus zoomed in.
With regards to smaller vessels, health becomes far less important on an individual basis, and moreso as a collective. But again, I'm not commenting on how much I like or dislike the tendency to jump around, but making a suggestion regarding how to cope.
And even when playing MP, which I have but don't really care to work up any reputation, I still do not find it necessary to have the tree take up the full length of my screen. Of course, maximizing my resolution also helps to make this more manageable.
For those having issues with lag, learning to minimize the tree helps a lot. Again, people seem lost on said subject.
Honestly, I'm not so worried about multi threading. I'm more worried about the 2Gb RAM limit. Adding Large Address Awareness, or something to enable more than 2Gb of RAM to be used would be a better idea IMO. It would reduce lag, prevent crashes, and allow more to be added without sacrificing performance. These days most people will have at least 4Gb of RAM. I personally have 12. I see no reason why we should be limited to 2Gb and the problems associated with that.
Some other things I think would be nice:
An optional Dynamic Movement system - as I can not find one that is updated for Diplomacy, let alone Rebellion when it comes out. I say optional as not all want it, and it would preferably be able to be set in the 'Create Game' menu. It would allow for more cinematic and interesting battles for those that want them, and the optional part would allow those that don't to stick with the 17th Century Military lineup.
A better cinematic mode. Make it remove all UI entirely when activated. It should make it so that you can take screenshots without having game stuff in the way. As is, to get it with only the basic UI in the way is a bit of a Hassle, as I have to unstick everything from that box on the left, then resticky it afterwards, all to take a nice screenshot.
LAA doesn't work on 32bit systems period. You have to modify the system to allow for it, not just the executable in question, and that in turn has some very poor effects on the system itself which more times then not leads to instability and necessitates a system wipe to fix all of the damage caused. Further, it produces little to no gain on 64bit systems. The current bottleneck is with the CPU, not RAM (thanks to one of the more recent patches), making LAA pointless to even consider. Adding LAA also excludes you from online play or updating. So there are serious negatives attached to it.
It is because it is a 32bit executable, not a 64bit executable, that is why you are limited.
Do remember that the engine being used was designed and created well before 2008. Just because in 2011/2012 most everybody has 4gb of RAM or more has no bearing on the fact that in 2005/2006 most everybody didn't.
You haven't looked hard enough, if at all. Distant Stars is one of the more popular mods, has lots of activity, and recent discussion was on Dynamic Movement as well as other things, so a search would have pointed you to the thread where you could have seen Dynamic Movement listed right in the OP. Get the Distant Stars mod, and my DS Efficiency AddOn pack. You will find dynamic movement in there as well as a few other fun little goodies. It is updated for diplomacy and nothing can be updated for Rebellion as it isn't out yet, but I will update it as well as everything else once we have access to the beta and I have even the slightest idea of what needs to be done. I've already publicly made that commitment and I just know at least a dozen people are going to hold me to it. ;] Not that I wouldn't want to see an option on the game menu to turn it on or off, but when you get basically the same thing by going to the modding menu and activating/deactivating the right pack, it just kind of seems superfluous. Anyway, play the mod, I'm sure you'll enjoy it, and if you want a mod that just is for dynamic movement for the stock ships after spending some time with the current version, post in the DS thread and I'll probably get to it when boredom strikes me which happens a lot more often then you'd think.
^ This. I'd kill a thousand Advent witches for this. Hell, let's make it two thousand and I'll through in a few dozen gutted Vasari invaders as well.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
