You can pause the game while the game is lagging, so obviously the connected players are still able to interactive with other connected players to some degree. How much work would it be to enable chatting while the game lags? It would be a good interface improvement.
Sins Forums
Here's a screen shot from a game I was playing. Obviously a fairly large fleet can slip in past the big red button. This was in an asteroid gravity well. Granted if I had better placement it would be a little trickier, but there's no way I can cover the whole phase lane.
I like how the real problem, increasing lag as the game continues (which I don't have a problem with BTW), seems to take a back seat to "OMG 64-bit!!1" Focus on the real issue, lag, and let the developers fix it however they choose.
[quote who="SpardaSon21" reply="44" id="3146144"]You say that like Sins has any chance of becoming a professional e-sport game.[/quote] And you say that like a balanced game is the responsibility of the community and all the developers need to do is plug some random numbers into a game engine.
My problem is just the arbitrary limit. "You can only build, let say, 4 super weapons! Yeah, I've always like the number 4." That's an easy fix but a better fix would be to mix in some other game mechanic when determining the cap. What next? We can only build 11 trade stations? Or how about we can't build titans during the first 26 minutes and 18 seconds? A few ideas: - Make super weapons cost supply or command p
Sins Forums
As I posted in another forum: AI War has a slick feature where the game state is loaded in seconds for players joining and leaving, so players can join in the middle of the game. The developer was of the opinion that this was an easy feature to implement so long as it was planned for from the beginning. [quote]I've seen so many very promising games riddled with crashes and desyncs. One such game was Sins of a Solar Empire, which was u
Sins Forums
One online game there was heavy fighting in a system with two opposing star bases (one tec, one advent); the fighting over this plannet was constant for literally 30+ minutes solid. There were 3 or 4 players represented in the fray. The plannet was eventually overthrown but neither side had the time or resources to really sure up the plannet or destroy the opposing starbase. The fleets moved on to more important tasks and there sits the plannet half developed with 2 damaged
You do relize that minidumps are caused by any program error? It's not like one simple fix is going to make them all go away. I never have minidumps. That said, Sins is a great game, but the programming is a bit shoddy by my estimation (hence the mini's for so many people).
The only reason it's an exploit is that you can't place stationary defences in 3D.
"There was once a frigate that was built facing the wrong way. 'Oh noes' cried the engineers. They needed the frigate facing the other way. "Bobby was a new engineer, and still had lots to learn. 'Turn the frigate around' he ordered. But Billy, a senior engineer with lots of experience, knew this would take to long. So Billy order the construction of a new shipyard facing the other direction, and then the new shipyard build a new frigate facing the correc
I've seen this happen. 1000 point fleet gone. No Vasari losses.
Still waiting on a the few conditional statements needed to limit on the number of winners in unlocked games.
Sins Forums
[quote who="Darvin3" reply="10" id="2489979"]As far as I'm concerned, I will not play unlocked teams until this is implemented. As far as I'm concerned, all the new mission systems are a wasted effort if this doesn't make it in. This should be priority #1 for Ironclad right now.[/quote]
Sins Forums
I would guess the community at large assumes this is the way the game already works. As an example consider this unlocked game I played recently: I quicly offered alliances to everyone (why not?). 2 of the more resonable players* in the game quickly accepted my offer, making it a 3v1v1v1. Towards the end one of my opponents began telling me that I would lose because my allies would betray me. I explained that we would all 3 win together. He then complai
I would willingly give you a plannet at the heart of my empire so I could farm it with drain plannet. I'd never have to worry about metal or crystal again.
[quote who="Agent of Kharma" reply="1" id="2483976"]Welcome to multiplayer online At this point the people on my ignore list are literally more than are not being ignored. I stick with the smaller games these days, where I have a shot in hell of having players who aren't asshoeles and who aren't on my ignore list.[/quote] The lengths well go to to protect ourselfs from random online people. All games have problems with quiters and poor sports, and this game is jus
It's in welfare mode. "Lets share this negative income together."
[quote who="BlackHawk141" reply="8" id="2481651"]Ill give it 5 days, this will be banned after the forum guys come back from christmass break. [/quote] By banned you mean locked? Also, I think I'm going to stop caring about wins. If someone wants to drag the game out, I don't care. Although I have always toyed with the idea of going afk myself against an AFKer. Especially when all my allies are AI, and we're winning anyways.
Lets not limit by star system configuration. Allow a second capital after X amount of plannets. This would be applicable in online games which usually have only 1 star. It would also avoid the problem of those non-standard maps with a dozen stars and 2 plannets per star. Otherwise you'll end up with: "Look at me, I have 7 plannets and 5 capitals." The online gameplay would suffer from silly machanics like plannets randomly rebelling; in my opinion.
[quote who="Darvin3" reply="2" id="2481255"]Personally, the game mode I want is "there can only be X". Victory is declared once there are only X players left standing. So if you set it to "there can only be 3" then the game continues until all but three players have been knocked out. Perfect for unlocked teams. Sure, you could make a team of 4, but everyone knows a backstab would have to occur eventually...[/quote] Agreed. I've proposed this many times,
Take a page from Civilization. You can build a 2nd capital after you control a certain number of plannets. How about every 15 plannets you control grants you an additional semi-homeworld. Also, if your homeworld is destroy you lose all your semi-homeworlds as well. (Not lose them completely, just have them no longer be semi-homeworlds). This is to preserve the "strike at the heart of your enemy" concept. Main reason I like this idea is
I propse a game where the host can set a time limit. Once the time limit has been reached then each player has his point totalled and winners are declaired. Point come from the currently existing system which ranks fleets, research, income, etc. There are 9 categories (perhaps more in diplomacy?) You'll notice that a system is already in place which colors the number in a gradient between green and red (with yellow in between). Completely red numbers get no points,
It couldn't hurt. But it doesn't matter where credits come from, so long as they're coming. It might be useful for ddetermining where enemies have the most income at. But this is easy to tell. Pro Tip: The desert with 9 trade ports has high income. If this is easy to implement into the game, and doesn't distract from more important issues. Then I think it's a great idea.
Sins Forums
If I may quote from Darvin3 in the original post I made many months ago: [quote]I'd agree; this is a fundamental flaw with unlocked teams as it's implemented currently. There only needs to be one loser. While the AI's are a bit psychotic (to say the least) and this keeps things interesting in singleplayer, in multiplayer humans just end up forming an overpowering team and claiming victory. Hopefully the next expansion addresses this, and I agree limiting the number of win
I don't think it is, but I don't know for sure. Taxing might be a good idea to encourage everyone to fleet up.