?

The AI can't do it. I don't see what the problem is.

F* that ^^

They're gonna get steamrolled by other companies who have looked over SOASE and picked it apart to make their games better.  2014... might as well put that on their tombstone if it's gonna take that long.  They should have been working on the engine 2 years ago when most other companies realized the direction gaming was going.

Well considering Rebellion is going to be released sometime in 2012. That gives them a two year development cycle for a Sins 2..at best.

I was being optimistic. And that's if they start right away or move on to something else entirely.

Your really looking at 2015.

I'm sure there is more than one team of devs, so some are working on this and some on that. Even still, it is true that they are not the best on meeting deadlines.

I still think the Z-axis is one of those things that would be okay if they just fix the issues with the game that make it such a breaker. I was hoping for a Homeworld strategic-style game anyway. Sad reality is that the devs have, thus far, chosen to brush it aside as a concern.

It depends on how many changes they make if they did a sequel. The art assets take a long time, but if its mostly the same, they can use the current high rez textures as low rez textures in the sequel. They could use the current game and engine to tweak gameplay changes and balance new units until the new engine is done. Then import everything and you're pretty much done. I think you could churn out a Sins 2 with 64-bit, dual core support in a short time (not that I could at all).

I'm sure its much more difficult than I make it sound, but it's one of the few times in this industry that I think you can recycle assets and do a complete rebuild in parallel with game testing unit balance. The issue here would be dealing with differences between the old engine and the new. And I'm sure there would be lots of bugs this way, but I'm sure theres a few people willing to help hunt those down.

I have never ... ever ... had that happen and I've been playing this for a while (not saying it's impossible, just improbable). The most I have ever seen happen is when a capital ship gets stuck in a tight group of structures and automatically rises above them and then sinks down at the next available moment. If it's automatic, then fine, let it be automatic, quirks happen. Just not a fan of manual control as you can take your ships completely out of enemy vessel's firing arcs, making them LESS effective than they already are, especially capital ships. Can anyone say 'carrier cruisers' just sitting around on a high/low z axis? Not cool.

1. More types of planets/gravity wells
Maybe more textures for them at the very least? Would procedural textures be possible...? iirc there are only maybe a half dozen textures per world type. They also come off as the same size, some massive worlds and some tiny worlds would mix things up a little bit, if only visually. Bonus points for tying it into gravity well radius.

6. Multiplayer support (better ranking system, in-game voting, anti-smurf etc.) and fixes (mini-dumps, lags)
The minidups and lag [especially late game] need to be shored up. I never played big online so I'm not sure how big of a problem smurfing is, though judging by some posts it must drive some people bonkers. As for the ranking system it won't matter much if you can't retain more than 50 active players.

7. Maps/Mods autodownload [including forge-made maps]
I always felt this hurt multiplayer numbers as much as anything else, there was no _good_ place to instantly exchange maps or modifications-- and since the MP count was never _huge_ to begin with, each time someone made their own map or mod it segmented online play further-- to the point where you almost have to have buddies who play in the same room or a group of close knit people who have decided on what mod/map pack to use.

8. Better and improved Forge and Map Designer
People love creating things, the more creative people can be with the Forge the more players you'll ultimately retain. I'd like to see Z-axis editing, militia editing, resource editing, gravity well size edit... etc. etc... Open it up as much as possible, you can still have the "quick map" options, but the people who seriously want to tinker should have the tool(s) to do so.

14. Terraforming, moons and other planets system improvements  
I like this idea, though terraforming should probably be expensive and very time consuming. Moons would be a nice addition in my opinion if only to make it feel more like a solar system... the lack of moons kind of irked me... I'll leave it to the developers to best decide on how such a thing could be integrated into the game. It would also be nice if the planet surface reflected the upgrades of the planet in a more visual way. Ground based defenses would also be sweet... surface to orbit rockets and so forth, not tank battles or anything.

I know it's only supposed to be five, but the previous were really other peoples ideas and so to [possibly] bring something new to the table:

a. A larger variance in stellar objects that have properties that can propagate through all "orbiting" [or "child", if you will] objects. ie: People have mentioned stealth and cloaking as possible additions, maybe a specific type of star.. a magnetar or something could dampen early warning systems, or disrupt missile and gun tracking. Perhaps a black hole or other highly dense plasma matter star that "eats" errant ships that stray too close... or a white dwarf that cuts population drastically due to a lack of solar output. Bonus points for binary and trinary star systems, double mega jackpot bonus for binary and trinary systems with different types of stars. [ie: black hole munching on red giant]. Doesn't seem so likely given what are likely to be the "limitations of the system", but I can dream.

b. I know this is beating a dead horse, but I'd like to see more use of the z-axis so that it's not considered an "exploit" by a majority of regular players-- space is three dimensional [at least] and I'd like to see that fact exploited more. I don't think you're going to take away from the game by providing more tactical options for players to explore. I would also like to see the Forge include Z-Axis locations for stars and planets, so the galaxy seems a little less, I don't know, flat.

c. Better default effects for weapons employment and more variance in physical ship damage. This would cut down on the desire for mods and probably, ultimately lead to a more cohesive multiplayer community [especially if the auto-mod / auto-map ideas are a no-go]. I have a hard time playing vanilla sins ;_;.

d. Three words: "debris field harvesting". Seems a shame to leave all that glittering metal just floating there in space with no purpose except looking pretty after a fight.

e. More and better employment of tactical formations-- a little bit of echelon, some X, maybe wedge might be nice.

Ultimately the most important part is that it's ready for prime time on day one. It needs to be polished, as bug free as possible and smooth on midrange hardware. A lot of things can be overlooked or forgiven but buggy software, crashes, dumps and poor performance annoys everybody. An internal patcher [a la starcraft, and many others] can mitigate the patching and version difference problem. You should strive for as few version numbers as you can.

Sorry for going on-- I look forward to seeing Rebellion... whenever it comes out.
-Gonzo

PS: Collectors Edition.

Gonzo, just as a heads up many of the items you have suggested exist in mods or are covered via special abilities that are tied to certain structures (debris consumption - Vasari Star Base) or planetary abilities. One thing I'm fairly sure isn't going to be possible is procedural generation of the planet textures. It would take extra cpu cycles on an already laggy game. I know they've reworked it so it's more efficient but I doubt that particular item would be included.

For Magnatars, Black Holes, more planet types, more planetary abilities go check out the Distant Stars mod.

Agreed.

I would think that civilian infrastructure development is as close to terraforming as I'm wanting for Sins.

You aren't ManiacGonzo, are you?

Hmm. My biggest request is not on the list.

But what I want the most is a way for allies to start next to each other on random maps and the ability to choose starting locations on the pre generated maps.

For the rest I trust in my ironcladded overlords.

all rite, im on a minor time limit here so i make this breif and if anyone else suggested this, i support u but i havent red it. i want the planets to have "size" we all know planets aint the same size so why are all the planets in sins the same size? i want to have "sized" planets so that we have a little more strategy put into what planet u attack next or, should i reinforce this pathetic planet or this nice prosperous MASSIVE planet. a change like that wuld be nice. obviously i can see the games comin out soon but i still think this wuld be a good addition.

Halfway decent English would also be nice, Mr. TEC Empire. I'm sure all modern browsers have spell/grammarcheck.

Also, planet "size" is already accounted for, in a way, through different planet types. Asteroids are small. Deserts and Terrans are big. The others are medium.

You can find a more thorough version of planet size with Distant Stars. More about traits than scale, although there is a model difference.

Sorry about my grammar. Like I said, was on a bit of a time limit. And yes I do understand that Terrans and Deserts are large planets and Asteroids are small etc. But i mean in the case of the individual planet TYPES there are sizes among them. Say a "Small Terran Planet" and a "Medium Terran Planet" and there is a slightly different amount of Tactical slots, Logistical slots, how much population it can support, how much health the planet has, probability of artifacts/bonuses etc. Even the amount of upgrades it can accommodate to make the planet better and how many Rebels/Neutrals are defending the planet and how big the gravity well is, and how many RES/Asteroids it has. I know that the planets already differ in how many asteroids are on them but with "Sized" planets, its not random: its determined on the planets mass. Same with Asteroids, if I found a "Small Asteroid" and a "Large Asteroid" I would rather get the bigger money with 4 Gauss Defense Platforms and a Repair Platform with some research stations than waste time on something that could only hold a Gauss Defense Platform and a Trade Port. It would bring a good amount of new strategy into the game.

All of that could make a HUGE difference in how your empire would grow. If you have a bunch of "Small" planets you wont get much, and if you gain some "Large" planets, they could easily become strongholds or production centers. Brand new strategies just because the planets have "Size".

Signed,

    Trade Emergency Coalition Advanced Research Facility (TEC-ARF)

Only one thing on my wishlist: More lore.

lol. more lore would be good. a nice history gives a nice feeling. go sgthydra!

I would like to see more fleet tactics options. Perhaps a way of grouping my fleet into one position (say capital ships int the fron, LRF behind them and support ships further behind them). As it is now, there is only engagement range and fleet cohesion to joggle with. Not much I think.

And perhaps a way of telling priorities to ships, like tell my Hoshikos to priorize healing my cap ships instead of LRF.

sincerely

This sort of stuff is easily (and frequently) done through micromanagement, and strong players never use fleets because (among other things) fleets cause your ships to waste a lot of time moving into position inside the fleet rather than firing or something.

yah, using fleets is only effective when ur moving them to a distant area and u want to seperate them from another part of your fleet. but in battle, no fleet.

although i will say that i do agree with NemoStardust

i wouldnt mind some extra options on my fleets when i do use em.

It's also a matter of what you have as options. Homeworld had many functional formations that altered based on the orders. Sphere could defend a central target or even create a full enveloping attack.

My favorite was the flying forward extended X (claw) formation.

Mine too for fighters and corvettes. Wall if I was looking to stop em dead with frigates. Sphere for defending a carrier or having fighters/corvettes set to evade and attack a cap.

yah. homeworld had the right idea of having all the different formations. if we could have that implemented in SOASE then we would have some REAL fun happening. and more control over squadrons too! i hate how they all bunch up and just become a mass. sometimes just glitching into one fighter/bomber. if we could change there formation too lotsah good stuff!

The more time they spend moving and deciding what formation to get into, the less damage they deal, for most frigates. The only real important thing to consider in a "formation" is to make sure flak frigates are in front (usually) - most everything else would be a complete waste of time. Plus, if you're playing a game against a decent opponent, you should be attempting to micromanage your battles anyway, making any preset "formation" almost completely irrelevant 5 seconds into the battle.