@Timmaigh : This sounds so much like "Star Trek Birth of the Federation"  Anyway the idea of minor races that can be either conquered or peacefully (by the use of diplomacy) integrated into your empire is great itself but adds another unstable factor to the game setup. it is either an advantage or a disadvantage to have these minor races around and either way it affects the starting balance of MP games.

 

As for the fourth race: So many folks here seem to hope for a new playable race but I am convinced the three races we have is all Sins needs. For two reasons:

1. There are the 3 aspects econ, war and culture and each race favors one of these aspects (TEC are the economists, Vasari ought to be the brutal warriors and advent is the funny singing culture club). Adding a fourth race would lead to a mixture of these aspects but nothing that is uniquely favoured by that race. (unless with diplomacy a race of diplomats is added, but honestly who wants to play diplomats in such a game, where the strongest cap ship is called EMBASSY?)

2. Almost all players are naggling about balance issues in this game. Adding a fourth race would increase the balancing issues by factor XX (insert whatever you like). With Sins and many other games we have learned that balance is a fragile building. I imagine it as a building made of millions of screws and connected with billions of wires. Turning one of these screws just a little bit will affect thousands of other screws and wires (we have seen this with patches changing things back and forth and just moving balancing problems from one unit to another). So with a new race we get another million screws and another billion wires and surely we will never get balance to this game. 

this thread is such an anomoly on the sins boards.  hostility just seems odd around here.  granted, this guy can have his opinion.  most of us just think he is wrong.

we dont know how he plays.  maybe everything he does in sins is purely about moving his fleets around to blow up stuff.

for the rest of the sins community, we see diplo as a way to bring new life into sins.  it could change the focus of the game similar to how entrenchment did.  since he doesnt want diplo, then he can go back to doing w/e he does in the game and not buy it

oh, and the post from the news site.  1) way to go putting the link on your post.  that would have helped. 2) there is a huge community of people right here in the middle of the sins/impulse forums that play all the time that want diplo and dont whine about a campaign.

diplo is going to be more than just making alliances and trade agreements.  you can already do that.  give the devs some credit as they build this expansion.

while you can have your opinions, it seems to me that everyone else disagrees with you on this point. we understand perfectly what you are saying, we just think it is wrong. key word here is think. it is our opinion and we are not stuffing it down your throat. what we really objected to was your statements about how you were right and everyone else was wrong. could you please explain the logic of that to me?

Wait for the details to be released, if you dont like it dont buy it same as any other game whats the big deal?

thats what i figured... it really sounds like a good plan to me... trying to re-work Sins 1 (as it were) so that it would work with a campaign seems far too difficult for the returns

just to be crytal clear: a good sp need not have a campaign, if there is enough content and variance to entertain. most 4x games don't have campaigns, look at the civ series. I'd say even old MoO 2 didn't really have one. backstory yes, but it really was more of a skrimish with some backdrop to it. even in rts games, there are some game, the anno series comes to mind, where only the most recent iteration came with a campaign right out of the box. and guess what? it's fun. so, you think the pack is a bad direction? well fine, that's your opinion, but not mine. and not a lot of other ppls'. look at the suggestion thread for the pack, it's got dozens, probably hundreds of post and suggestions. but of course no one is interested in non-combat options, oh no, not according to almighty, omniscient darksxx.

you posted your opinion and that's fine, but insulting everyone or being arrogant never won any argument or discussion. so accept that some feel differently and want this.

when you start the game doesnt it specifically say "Single Player" on the top button. 

im at work so i cant verify it, but im pretty sure.

correct, it does say 'Single Player' at the top, then 'Multi Player', and then 'IronClad Online'.

Evidently, IC wants us to play SP MORE than MP/ICO, since its the first button *<-random amused speculation of no meaning*.

I was like yeah I'm getting a compliment! Then I saw who wrote this and now I'm embarrassed that he likes me....but come on, really Darksxx? If you're going to keep on arguing when FROGBOY HAS ANSWERED U

at least do it politely. There are a lot of posts about if Diplomancy will be good or not, but those get thoughtful, well reasoned answers instead of us all laughing at how stupid you are because the OP is POLITE on how he/she questions Diplomancy. Just a pointer.

 

And another thing that's been really bugging me,

WHO is brad????

So far Ill Ive heard out of most of you is why diplomacy is good, but not one of you have said why its going to be good.  The old Turn based games like Master of Orion had diplomacy, not sure if even many of you even played that game.  but you could trade Tech with the AI and make alliances, but again that worked well because that game was built from the start with that type of gaming in mind.  Is that going to be the case with this new addon? I seriously doubt it, Ive modded this game and seen how the scripts work and ships gain their tech. So unless IC is going to do a full on revamping of the engine and rewrite the scripts I just dont see this happening. 

You all can bash me all you want about the viability of having Diplomacy but for the most part its not a valid option unless you can trade tech, or gain territory with the AI.  And you guys cant even agree or convince me that in MP games where is this or how is it going to work?  And nit pick all you want about the Single Player button being there, call it SP all you want but when you get right down to it its Skirmish.  For those of you that play by yourselves Diplomacy may work for you in this game if its done right.  Watch and see when it comes time for the reviews that this new addon will get trashed.  watch and see.

actually, trading tech was mentioned in one of the info snipplets, I think the one from IGN. no idea what else is in there, that's what makes judging this so difficult now. we don't really know the capapilities and limits of the new system and what compromises is makes to work in a rts environment. though if it is their main selling point, I expect it to be quite comprehensive (blair I think said, long ago, they take the old diplo system out, trash it, burn it, burry it and place something new in, so it IS going to be a rather radical change I believe).

Brad = Frogboy = Draginol = CEO of Stardock.

We still know virtually nothing about it, and you think you know how it will be when it comes out?

 

Me I have no doubts that the new addons for diplomacy will be good and that they will add much needed depth to the game. I belive I will ahve many prayses for them on that issue. Hoever with the other hand I might be taking out my FLAMEBAT and letting them have it on the issue of game balance. But one must also take in mind that some of the diplomacy addons migth chnage the current game balance, witch may cause some balance problems to go away. I say SOMe because some problems like lums being OPed and that the chain of counters is broken will not be solved by diplomacy addons alone.

@EadTaes

I wish you would be quite.

I've been following this thread and I'm finally going to chime in.  No one (except the devs of course, and even they can't see the future) know how the new xpack will change gameplay.  Bashing or praising it at this point in time is not going to do anything.  It never hurts to be optimistic though.

Also, Dark.  Your definition of "Single Player" might be a little off.  What you are referring to is a campaign which I know you've said before.  But to say that the game has no SP just for the fact that it has no Campaign is not correct.

Campaign=SP

Skirmish=SP

SP does not always=Campaign

SP does not always=Skirmish

To clarify, you can have Campaign and/or Skirmish and it's still considered SP.  One or the other, or both.  I think that's one of the reasons everyone else is seeming to gang up on you.  You fail to see the point that Skirmish is SP (just not the SP experience you want).

Onto the your point about the game not being designed for Diplomacy.  If the game was not designed to have the option of diplomatic relations with other players, it would never have even been put into the original game.  While the diplomacy system is very limited right now and pretty much broken, the xpack is supposed to flesh it out.  And no one knows yet how the xpack will affect both SP and MP play.  But saying that the game was not designed for diplomacy in any way is also not correct.

 

I personally believe that the game will always have a very RTS feel to it and that the 4X factors will take a backseat.  Though the future is uncertain and who knows what this xpack will do. That doesn't mean, however, that the 4X goodies should be taken out.  Everything put together is what makes Sins SINS.

 

I recommend that if you have such big problems with this game or just Diplomacy, forget it exists.  Just play Vanilla or Entrenchment in Skirmish if you will.  If you really need the Campaign option, you will have to go to another game.  At least for now.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.  I'm sure it's one of my longer-winded posts.

You need to reread the thread. Also, read all of the threads regarding Diplomacy on the forums. Why it is good, even in multiplayer, has been addressed many times.

Like this one will

Countless on these forums have

Just like this game will

Well............you're wrong.

So....the devs have LOCKED the code even for themselves and can't change it?

 

You're pretty shortsighted then

You're right finally. Although we would call it Single Player Skirmish mode. The terms 'Single Player' and 'Skirmish' are not mutually exclusive.

I can't wait. Now, quit trying to turn these forums into the Demigod forums.

AMEN!

DUUUDE. Empire Total War was praised through the mighty heavens in almost all reviews throughout the web, when it only recently became playable, half a year after the release!
It CTDed about every 10 minutes and corrupted saved games on daily basis until patch 1.3!
On Total War Center, the biggest unofficial TW community (bigger than the official I believe), the "ETW Praise Thread" counts 450 posts while the "ETW Criticism Thread" is well beyond 4000!
I personally made a poll about whether the people there are planning to buy the next TW game asap, over 50% of the votes either said "no" or "not before I hear reliable info that it works". That's very optimistic for a fansite - I believe such a poll here would give 95% positive answers.

Reviews are shit. Even if it does suck balls, it won't go below 7/10 in scores.
And it won't suck balls... probably.

I read your post and I thought to myself, WTF?  The warring--the "skirmishing"--against the other players IS the game.  It is a real-time strategy game!  It isn't about cheesy cutscenes and a ghey story.  If you want a story, go play an adventure or mystery type of game or just rent a movie.

Let's see what they come up with.  I was very skeptical about Entrenchment when it first came out too and even after people started saying that it was worthwhile, but when the MP community moved to Entrenchment, I went and purchased it and now I'd much rather play that over vanilla Sins.  I'm very skeptical about Diplomacy as well, but I'll withhold judgment until we learn exactly what's in it and how it all works.

 

A space game setting like this can easily be modified to add more races and to add a back story for them.  "Race X is fleeing their home system because the sun is about to explode and now they're trying to gain a foothold on the TEC's system."  You can think of any number of stories like that to explain why a new and as of yet unheard of race is moving into the system.

Are you saying that it has something to with computer power?  Perhaps with video cards having to handle textures for four different races?

@Haree78- you can have more than three races in a game at one time. I've had FIVE in-game at the same time, with NO MINIDUMPS, CRASHES, or FREEZES playing the Requiem mod.

@Darksxx- *sigh*. So closed minded you are, when much could be learned from the posters.

EDIT: also @Darksxx, something I've been meaning to say- I noticed you got karma. By your way of explaining karma, I wonder, who's ass did you kiss to get it?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I got the impression that currently with everything out we started to run out of memory to run the game, but there are mods out there that add races so perhaps it's possible.

I always thought that the reason I start losing special effects end game, invisible bullets/wave ammo, beam weapons just being invisible with just the sound was because my game was running out of addressable memory.

maybe its scared of you...

ive heard of Sins being run on Chipsets with out any trouble... given, they were playing it on lowest of low quality everything... but it ran no problems...

i, personally, never experience any such problems, even on full out, massive maps with multiple races and what not...

Hey Darksxx!

 

 

 

up yours Darksxx