Sins of a Surveyed Community

[Corey]

As we close out the planning and development of the first faction, I thought it would be a good time to ask the community for their feelings about the base game, which can help us in finalizing our plans for the first alphas, as well as what we do going forward. So if you could answer the following questions  about Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion (some are very open/general, others more specific, just answer whichever ones you have an opinion on or even just comment on other peoples')

1. Which aspects do you most like about the game?
2. Which aspects do you dislike?
3. How do you feel about the tech trees?
4. Are there any aspects of the game that you feel are underdeveloped?
5. Are there any features that the game feels like it should have, but that it lacks?

The more information and feedback we have on this, the better we'll be able to tune initial releases, so we'd appreciate any responses. Remember, guests can post without an account as well.

[Mat8876]

2. Titans where annoying for me because they easy to destroy in lower levels, I almost lost one against 3 level 1 Capital ships.

3. Tech trees where quite long to be honest and a lot of the upgrades where just continuing from the one before when they could just be one upgrade.

[Settra]

1. The culture system and something other than firepower playing into the combat system are my two favorite aspects.
2. The inability to specialize planets was a bit of a bummer for me (build a station and the planet gains more tactical/ logistic slots or trade/production/population while losing some of the opposite.
3. Well I love the fact that they exist and the fact that they are sizable, but it is a shame that they are more or less rehashes of the other factions techs.
4. Honestly, the tech trees themselves seem to be underdeveloped and could have had potential to either be longer or more diverse for each faction.
5. Since I'm not too familiar with the limitations of the game this may not be possible to the extent of which I'd like, but I think the game should have more options (which then gain restrictions) about how one uses their planets.

[tlmiller]

As we close out the planning and development of the first faction, I thought it would be a good time to ask the community for their feelings about the base game, which can help us in finalizing our plans for the first alphas, as well as what we do going forward. So if you could answer the following questions  about Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion (some are very open/general, others more specific, just answer whichever ones you have an opinion on or even just comment on other peoples')

1. Which aspects do you most like about the game?
2. Which aspects do you dislike?
3. How do you feel about the tech trees?
4. Are there any aspects of the game that you feel are underdeveloped?
5. Are there any features that the game feels like it should have, but that it lacks?

The more information and feedback we have on this, the better we'll be able to tune initial releases, so we'd appreciate any responses. Remember, guests can post without an account as well.

1.  For how few resources it uses, the graphics are quite nice.
2.  The fact that there are only a couple unique techs.  Most of the techs are shared through every faction, making it completely useless.
3.  See 2.
4.  Agreeing with Settra.  Since there's only 2 or 3 unique techs per civilization, the tech tree is massively underdeveloped.
5.  I'm sure I can think of some, but at the moment my mind is blank.

[Dawnstorme]

First off would like to say...it would be nice to have more race specific techs. The graphics are nice just need more unique factions. Instead of loyalists and rebels which are very similar. Which covers my dislikes and likes. Perhaps more unique buildings that are racial only. More buildings are always good in general either way.

[Cody Monk]

I feel that fighters would fly by way to fast when making an attack run on an enemy ship or fighter craft, I know it helps when intercepting an enemy that's escaping but is it possible to at least make to when they catch up to their target they strike at their regular speed or something. their top speed is just to fast to me, but that's just my opinion.

[Triston long]

1 the massive scale of the game u can  make it practicly unlimmited  i made a map of over 1000 planets just for the hell of it
2 the ship limis are far to low i think the last logistics resserch should be expensive as hell but give unlimited pop for ships
3 there cost lines are to high but ive always thought there patterns were solid.
4 the star base i think need to be an open ended thing as long as you have funds u should be able to add on to it and it needs an exp thing cause there just like capitol ships they should gain exp
5  more diversety  never enough ship or race options

[Onikenshin]

1. Which aspects do you most like about the game?
2. Which aspects do you dislike?
3. How do you feel about the tech trees?
4. Are there any aspects of the game that you feel are underdeveloped?
5. Are there any features that the game feels like it should have, but that it lacks?

1. Bringing in reinforcements into a battle is great.
2. Ship tactics are pretty much non existent, whoever has more DPS is going to win. It seems like all the strategy is trying to amass a larger fleet(therefore larger economy) Than the other player. There is no turn around unless it is in the guise of 20 additional capital ships to the rescue.
3. Some techs seem should be universal, otherwise it's pretty much the same will little to distinguish the factions.
5. Navy tactics. I want to win a battle because I outsmarted the other person, not because my navy is bigger than your navy.

[Clubby71]

As we close out the planning and development of the first faction, I thought it would be a good time to ask the community for their feelings about the base game, which can help us in finalizing our plans for the first alphas, as well as what we do going forward. So if you could answer the following questions  about Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion (some are very open/general, others more specific, just answer whichever ones you have an opinion on or even just comment on other peoples')

1. Which aspects do you most like about the game?
2. Which aspects do you dislike?
3. How do you feel about the tech trees?
4. Are there any aspects of the game that you feel are underdeveloped?
5. Are there any features that the game feels like it should have, but that it lacks?

The more information and feedback we have on this, the better we'll be able to tune initial releases, so we'd appreciate any responses. Remember, guests can post without an account as well.

1.  Building up hero units (capital ships) has always been a favorite part of the game for me.
2.  How many units you can stuff into cramped spaces has always irked me, makes the whole game center around numbers.
3.  I mostly just thought of them as a given, since most of the techs were the same.  The whole thing could be simplified by just have  the economy/weapon boosting upgrades just be lumped together at each level and just be that much more expensive, 10-12x more since it changes everything at that tech level with one mammoth project.  That way you could have just as many research options with more unique techs for each race, without bogging down the window.
4. Fighter diversity was always a problem, but you guys seem to be on top of that.
5.  Geeze, I don't even know if this is possible, but troop transports that take longer to capture but preserve the planets infrastructure could be a nice fit.  Oh, and maybe a logistics building that converts logistic points into fewer tactical points for planets, or vice versa.

[Kalo]

1. Which aspects do you most like about the game?
2. Which aspects do you dislike?
3. How do you feel about the tech trees?
4. Are there any aspects of the game that you feel are underdeveloped?
5. Are there any features that the game feels like it should have, but that it lacks?

1. Bringing in reinforcements into a battle is great.
2. Ship tactics are pretty much non existent, whoever has more DPS is going to win. It seems like all the strategy is trying to amass a larger fleet(therefore larger economy) Than the other player. There is no turn around unless it is in the guise of 20 additional capital ships to the rescue.
3. Some techs seem should be universal, otherwise it's pretty much the same will little to distinguish the factions.
5. Navy tactics. I want to win a battle because I outsmarted the other person, not because my navy is bigger than your navy.

2. It really depends. The most you'll get from ship tactics always depends on the Capital ships you have which I really don't like because most fleets are composed of smaller ships. I like that someone else noticed this though.

3. What?

5. Pretty sure we're working on that in some way or another. Especially with the Empire.

[Onikenshin]

Wow I didn't realize my number 3 didn't make any sense until I Just read it again.

 I was meaning to say some techs should be universal for all the factions, like common scientific breakthroughs. The second part was saying aside from the techs that would seem a common achievement, it is too similar in vanilla. While there are probably some techs that everybody is going to have, there isn't enough difference in most of the other categories.

[Coldonne]

4. I feel like the combat system is underdeveloped two groups of ships sitting across from each other seems right, but what happens when they get up close and personal.
5. I'd like to see that the weapons do more damage up close and less from far away, after all, no one wants to be hit point blank with a mass driver.

[Waffle Wagon]

1. I really enjoy the scope of the game, being able to fight numerous battles simultaneously across the galaxy and all. I also like the way capital ships gain experience and level up. Trade is another great feature, it makes your empire really come alive instead of the rather lifeless galaxy in EAW. I appreciate diplomacy as well, but with some reservations...


2. There does not seem to be a clear "early game" or "late game," the best capital ships are available right from the start. This fact, when combined with the high income and ease of expanding your pop cap means that there is almost no reason at all to build frigates or any kind of smaller combat ship, with the exception of anti-fighter units. Also, it seems that combat frequently consists of just parking fleets next to each other and letting them shoot. The battles do not seem as tactical as they were in EAW, which despite being a buggy and poorly executed game could have very tense conflicts where with smart tactics a small force could defeat a much larger one. It feels like in Sins its just a numbers game, whoever has more ships with more dps is going to win every time.

I think part of that has to do with the reduced role that fighters play in Sins, they seem to just fly around on autopilot. You can't order a squadron to stay in one position or wait before attacking, they'll just disregard you and attack whatever enemy is closest. And if you build enough flak frigates, you don't really need fighters at all, just fill your hangars with bombers.

I feel that fighters would fly by way to fast when making an attack run on an enemy ship or fighter craft, I know it helps when intercepting an enemy that's escaping but is it possible to at least make to when they catch up to their target they strike at their regular speed or something. their top speed is just to fast to me, but that's just my opinion.

I definitely agree, fighters move way too quickly.


3. The so-called "trees" are nothing more than long series of upgrades that serve no purpose other than to waste the player's time and credits. Where in most games you would have one or two upgrades to something like lasers in Sins you have five or more tiny, incremental upgrades devoted to a single weapon type. This artificially lengthens the game, adding fake depth by giving the player random stuff to spend money on. Not to mention the fact that tech trees are essentially the same for every faction. Also, the diplomacy tree is kinda odd, why would you have to research the ability to talk to other factions? This is supposed to be the distant future, all factions should at least have the capability to communicate even if they aren't on friendly enough terms to do so.


4. Tech trees and combat are severely in need of help.

[tlmiller]

2. There does not seem to be a clear "early game" or "late game," the best capital ships are available right from the start. This fact, when combined with the high income and ease of expanding your pop cap means that there is almost no reason at all to build frigates or any kind of smaller combat ship, with the exception of anti-fighter units. Also, it seems that combat frequently consists of just parking fleets next to each other and letting them shoot. The battles do not seem as tactical as they were in EAW, which despite being a buggy and poorly executed game could have very tense conflicts where with smart tactics a small force could defeat a much larger one. It feels like in Sins its just a numbers game, whoever has more ships with more dps is going to win every time.

I think part of that has to do with the reduced role that fighters play in Sins, they seem to just fly around on autopilot. You can't order a squadron to stay in one position or wait before attacking, they'll just disregard you and attack whatever enemy is closest. And if you build enough flak frigates, you don't really need fighters at all, just fill your hangars with bombers.

I agree that Sins is more of a "higher DPS wins every time" game, and never thought about it, but could very well be for the reason you conjecture.

[Corey]

Alright, we have a good bit of feedback here. There seems to be some common themes, so I'll mostly address those instead of each individual instance.

Starting with...

2 the ship limis are far to low i think the last logistics resserch should be expensive as hell but give unlimited pop for ships
3 there cost lines are to high but ive always thought there patterns were solid.

From a technical standpoint, this would be impossible without the game crashing, becoming a permanent screenshot simulator from the lag, or making someone's computer catch fire. From a gameplay perspective, the game would solely be about who can outproduce the other player because there'd be no cap to the up-front DPS you can bring, and any losses would be meaningless. There's already a bit of that problem in Sins where you can almost immediately replace any assets you lose anyways, which Waffle Wagon touched upon. While we've been testing technical stuff, I've had the ships as being essentially free in the mod, and in all of my AI vs AI "play" tests, this has resulted in never-ending stalemates at individual planets, and with unlimited ships with lower costs you'd be staying within the same effect; individual ships become meaningless if you can spam them.

Long, shared and redundant tech trees

We've talked about this pretty extensively, so we basically agree with everything everyone's said here. We're pretty confident in our changes in this area, although it'll take a ton of tuning. I'll just add that with very few exceptions, this isn't really a period with actual scientific breakthroughs; there's some definite technological improvements in some cases, like with Hapans being given better turboalser technology by the New Republic, or some of the Maw Installation things that the Empire id (yes Slornie, the phase shifter things are cool...). On the whole though, most of the techs we're doing are on what would be considered more "policy decisions," with the flat upgrades being less universal and more about emphasizing something within that faction.

2. The inability to specialize planets was a bit of a bummer for me (build a station and the planet gains more tactical/ logistic slots or trade/production/population while losing some of the opposite.

You can't make a structure/ability/upgrade give or take away logistic or tactical slots; all you can do is techs which universally increase or decrease the value of those slots. We also can't add new types of specializations like those in Forbidden Worlds. However, the other option, which we are using, is the command station thing, where you build a military command structure as a logictic structure which adds military bonuses, and bonuses to military aspects of the planet while decreasing economic/cultural aspects. In the first version we probably will only have the military aspect of this (for the Remnant, at least) but we'll likely expand on it if it's successful.

Tactics in battle vs higher DPS
I think this came from a few different issues. One is firing arcs; there actually are better ways to position and move your ships, but it's not clearly indicated ingame so it's harder to take advantage of. This is something better handled through documentation. Ability usage tends to be limited to capital ships on autofire, and there's a lot more cookie-cutter, rock-paper scissors balancing so other than having the counters for something there, there's not much actual counter play. It's less a question of overall DPS than the actual type of DPS. Your enemy has a fleet of carriers, but you lack flak? You lose. Most of your important decisions are made before the battle starts, although certain ability usage and some use of other tactics can definitely affect the outcome. The fact that every ship is as effective when it's at 100% as at 1% also contributes to this, especially when capital ships and Titans are such a big factor. This is something we'd like to change towards favouring diverse fleet compositions, but also actions in the battle. Of course, this is really easy to say, not quite as easy to change.

4. I feel like the combat system is underdeveloped two groups of ships sitting across from each other seems right, but what happens when they get up close and personal.
5. I'd like to see that the weapons do more damage up close and less from far away, after all, no one wants to be hit point blank with a mass driver.

This wouldn't be possible within the game, but there wouldn't be much change from distance other than accuracy; there isn't any deceleration occurring as they travel, so there wouldn't be any significant difference to impact strength closer as compared to farther away. If anything, the physical weapons tend to have propulsion systems that I'd imagine would speed up more as they went (to a point).

2. There does not seem to be a clear "early game" or "late game," the best capital ships are available right from the start. This fact, when combined with the high income and ease of expanding your pop cap means that there is almost no reason at all to build frigates or any kind of smaller combat ship, with the exception of anti-fighter units.

Never underestimate corvette/LRM spam. Either way, there's a key difference between Sins and Star Wars within this as well. There's such a  hige gap between ship strengths that it's a little ridiculous. In Star Wars, it's less of a tier system and more of a scale. Yes, an ISD's gonna beat a Carrack every time, but a VSD poses more of a thread, and a group of 3 or 4 Carracks can do some serious damage. This has even tripped me up in my playtests with Ascendancy; I'm so used to base Sins where you build your free capital ship, five frigates, and send them gallivanting around to eliminate every single militia force in a matter of a few seconds while I go and get a drink. I tried doing that in Ascendancy, came back and a defense force of a few lancers, Carracks and a Dreadnaught had destroyed my ISD and the, in hindsight, insufficient accompaniment I gave it.

Fighters

Fighters are a bit tougher to manage. We agree on the speed thing, for sure. They definitely hold a lot of sway, in a rock-paper scissors sort of way. However, this is another instance where the difference between Sins and SW can come into play. Fighters are almost untouchable in Sins, and when they are, they die. Almost every ship in Star Wars, on the other hand, has the means to handle them in some way, so there's a lot more interactivity there. Fighters also have some more variable roles.