Giving up is probably a good idea when your arguments don't have a leg to stand on.

Begging your pardon, sir, but my "opinions" are conflicting; you would have found this had you read past my last quoted clause. This is why I choose not to take a side.
And thank you for paragraphing, by the way; it's a bit easier to follow now.

EDIT: Excuse me - I might have misunderstood, but your statement is self-contradictory. Did you mean that I am NOT neutral? Or that I am?

its like a 5-pool 18 zergling rush in a 3v3

How do you 5-pool 18 zerglings? 5-pool gets you 6 and a trailing 2. Or do you mean he's cheating?

I call that an exploitive bunch of bullshit not worth participating in. Good bye to SoSE and good bye to all so called MP computer games. I refuse to be the sacrificial scape goat to this sort of bull shit. No thanks.

Quit being such a baby. You just faced the no win scenario and you failed miserably. Captain Kirk would not be pleased.

Play games with small fleet sizes if that is such a problem. If players have to spend more points getting logistics before they can spam huge fleets the game will be much more to your liking. And build scouts, you have to watch your enemy, knowing what he is planning is crucial.

Wow, this post really blows my mind. Most of the reasons have already been posted, so I won't get into it. On thing that keeps popping up on these forums, however, is the difference between strategies and tactics and that the former is missing from RTSs. That's simply not true, and I think it's a matter of misunderstanding terms.

The dictionary defines Strategy as 1)the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations and 2)a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result: a strategy for getting ahead in the world.

Tactics is defined as the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.

I'm not sure which aspects of the above definitions are supposed to be missing from Sins. How your position your forces and coordination of attacks (as just two examples) fall within tactics--almost everything on a larger scale falls within strategy. Build orders are strategy, it just so happens that a good bit of the strategic thinking has taken place before the game. I'd like the point out that this is PRECISELY how the US military works (and every other military I've ever studied). Anyone going into a fight without a game plan will loose every time, unless they have some unsurmountable advantage over the other side (i.e. bigger/better military and/or production capacity).

What separates the pros from the hacks (in the real world as well as in games) is adaptability. Plans don't survive first contact, and if you're teching RA and you get LRM spammed, you're better adapt or your dead. Chances are, you're already dead, which brings up another interesting point: not all strategies were created equal.

I think what people mean when they say this game lacks strategy is that it lacks the scale of strategy they desire. I can only assume they want the scale available in, say, Civilization or pretty much any nation-level TBS. This is often referred to as "Grand Strategy", and some confusion is warranted because of the name. Sins takes a small step in this direction, but I think it falls far short of most turn-based games. That's just the nature of the beast: unless you want simcity (don't get me wrong: that would be ok for another game, but I would probably find it a little boring) RTSs are going to be relatively combat-centric.

So, to recap: Sins has loads of strategy, some of it takes place before the game starts, but that's as it should be. If you expected GalCiv, you'll be a little disappointed at the scale and focus on combat, but that's why most of us play RTSs: glorious fleet-on-fleet combat!

Fine, I'll play all the Blackjack you guys want except I get to choose what cards you get and what cards I get. We'll play all the chess you guys want except I get to choose your pieces and where they are on the board and the same for myself. No sense in starting with everything the same for all players. Otherwise, it wouldn't be strategy and tactics.

Oh no, a learning curve! I better blame the game for stacked odds against new players, even though there's a forum filled with information!

Yeah, you do seem to be an annoyance. Sorry you don't like playing a game that has winners and losers.

These boards are getting more and more whinny by the day.

You guys sure to seem to non respond to the basic idea of this post that the MP mode gives an advantage to the host. I felt annoyed previously due to these sort of blast away at the OP type of responses. If you don't like the post don't leave disparaging comments.

I didn't do this bullshit to any of your posts!

Disparaging? If so, I'll try to avoid it in this comment. Although I'd recommend you try to stick to that one yourself if you want others to reciprocate. You know, golden rule and all. (i.e. the following quote)



*sigh* Did you even read my comment? The strategy that happens before the game starts is planning. If in your game your opponents somehow started with different resources, number of planets, fleet size, etc. then you would be completely right. However, they didn't. You got thumped because they had experience and planning going into that game. It happens to all of us at some point. My first MP I was happily researching trade ports when a "massive" (by my estimation) fleet phased in and killed me in no time. That was a little discouraging, but I'm better now and that doesn't happen so often. Occasionally, I'm even the one with the massive fleet (although to be honest, not very often), but I don't get it by cheating or stacking the deck: i get it by being better.

The only real complaint you have is that some players know maps more than others and, if I understand you, that friends play ffa together. These are very simple to fix, as has already been stated: play on random maps with locked teams. The only time the game actually gives any advantage at all to the host (other than the ability to play with their favorite settings) is if it's a map they designed themselves. This would indeed seem to be unfair, which is why I don't play custom maps I haven't seen before very often. I recommend you avoid them as well.

If you go into any game, not just sins, with no idea what you're doing, you will loose. That's not the fault of the game, or, really, even your fault. It's simply a matter of lack of experience. So don't give up, keep in there, pick your games more carefully, and I promise it will get better.

To be entirely frank, if someone disagrees with you, and they have a damn good reason for doing so (which seems to be my opinion more and more), then they're not being disparaging, for crying out loud.
I thought I was neutral on this post, but it seems I'm moving more and more to non-neutrality. Tropical has this nailed, and you complain that he's disparaging, even when you're not reading his posts. Dammit, don't you know what planning is?

Sigh.. this was obviously directed at Aspartic and his BS comment. Your response Tropical Squash at least addressed game play, whereas many of the so called comments in this thread made no such attempt. So much of my frustration was directed at that sort of BS.

Nice post about Strategies and Tactics what does it have to do with the basic premise of most games I think of as games. Contract bridge is everyone is given a hand to bid and play and table results are compared this is understood by all parties from the outset.

This is host chooses map and works with partner to develop ideal map based strategies. If you wanted this style of game then a separate lobby with say 4 to 5 maps the host and partner could choose from as well as challengers would allow everyone to prepare on an equal footing. The current arrangement requires me to memorize every static map in Sins, know them by name and have practiced with them enough to compete with those focusing on a single map.

A few people who responded to this post caught this and recognized this also. Certainly discourages new players from MP mode if you ask me. A number of my responses in this post addressed this with specfic suggestions aimed at establishing a new comer lobby with perhaps random maps and maybe 1 static map to learn.

The idea being level play from the outset by organizing the MP mode.

Not really. "You guys" usually means more than one person. So no, it wasn't "obviously directed" at anyone other than the rest of us in general. It's once again a question of clarity.



So you're saying we should abandon that which the games are trying to simulate just because they're games. Someone who has planned beforehand doesn't get the benefits of that planning? I'm sorry, that doesn't quite fit with me. This game is not contract bridge.



Well, isn't this what "dedicated" players do anyway? If you wish to compete with them, then that's what you should do. Why don't you start a "n00bs only" type game, you know, for beginners. That could fix your problem

or a random map lol

hehe... Found it a bit funny... Individuals may, but mankind as a whole will never do that. We've had a pretty good run, but all we've done is run in circles. <-- IMO, use it, lose it :)

On the main topic... casual gamers vs competitive gamers. I've played my share of MP Star Craft and have experienced my share of Zerg rushes (and Protoss carrier rushes).

I now play exclusively single-player games, unless I'm LANing with friends... why? I have a different play style... I like building an empire, playing a scenario, that type of thing... It has to be gradual and I want to be immersed. Competitive gaming takes the fun out of it for me. I like sport as well, but don't call it a game then IMO Here's looking at you: EA and C&C3 -> RTS as a sport? Argh... Anyway...

That said, some find pre-organised, win-at-all costs, strategy fun... Let them play like that. Who are we to judge?

Even though empire-builders and competitive sport gamers can both play against each other in SOASE, they'll never be playing the same game. They're completely different games. Don't play together. It won't work. Ever.

Just one note before I end off... you're not "elite" or "higher level" if you're playing the game as a sport... you're just playing it differently.

You have to practice? And you'll get better if you do? And the people who practice the most are better than the others? What kind of messed up game is this? I certainly never remember having to learn maps in Starcraft or Dawn of War. This is a travesty! Ironclad, you must do better! At least put in a facility where I can opt not to play in games on static maps which I'm not hosting!

Well.. at the end of the day, its only just a PC game. Just relax and losing MP games won't be such a big deal. There isn't a single game in the world that is perfectly balanced in such a way that all players start off on the same square ALL the time.

P.S. Just some nonsense... In Monopoly, I do not consider buying Mayfair and Park Lane, and placing hotels on them, and waiting for the unlucky guy to land on it an exploit. Nor do I consider those 2 properties Imbalanced.

Awesome, jhtham. let's meet up and play some Monopoly online. You can have Mayfair and Park Lane, while I put hotels on BOARDWALK and PARK PLACE.  

To the OP: The play to win at all costs and the play for fun MP arguments are all over this board. You played a very small map that you weren't familiar with against 2 people who were only interested in the win, not in exploring the galaxy and having adventures in space. And as expected, you got pwned. I think you do yourself, this game, and your $40 a disservice by going to permanent sore loser mode becuase you essentially got ganked once in an online game your not proficient in yet. Some maps are 'gankier' than others, learn which they are and avoid them (Do) , or go away in silence (Do Not). There is no try.  

I only play random maps with friends thus I do not encounter this problem.

Dear Mr. Bigdogbigfeet There is a random map function; Host your own game and I think you can turn off pirates as of 1.03 (so you can prevent other people from "abusing" it; or you can just play SP against the AI to practice?



@Habadacus: OFF TOPIC: Broadwalk (US version?) = Mayfair (UK Version) It just proves that bribing pirates to attack someone isn't an exploit... its just something you do... naturally...

LOL, I was wondering where you came up with Mayfair.

Monopoly on a random map, THAT would be fun.

I spent about an hour writing a reply to this thread today, and for some reason when I hit post I was suddenly logged out, and my huge diatribe was completely lost (yes, it was gone if I hit "back")... I wanted to shoot someone.

Maybe I'll fill it in again, if I manage to find the spirit...

Good grief your assumptions little more. People have vomited this crud on this thread numerous times. Each and every attempt I have made on this thread has produced a repetition of this sort of thing. I'll post a "survey said" and "vote here" box for ya.