WHIPperSNAPper2008

Join Date 03/2008

+126

Are the single player and online multiplayer parts of the game essentially completely different games? Which one offers the greater challenge, the most suspense, and the most intensity?

While reading some recent discussions I began to wonder about whether the single player and online multiplayer components of Sins are, essentially, completely different games, not in terms of the mechanics of the game, but in how they actually play out.

In the single player game people might play locked teams FFA or FFA with diplomacy. While FFA isn't rare in online multiplayer, it isn't the preferred game type and it's often played with locked teams. When the teams are unlocked sometimes it morphs into an outright team game (ie, 3v3) or if diplomacy is used (let's form a truce and attack so-and-so) it has to actually be maintained between the allies. (You can't just merely destroy 10 enemy structures or feed resources, rather you have an intelligent and possibly cunning "ally" who might want to stab you in the back.) Most online multiplayer games are locked teams 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 and 5v5.

In the single player game you can play campaigns that can go on for hours whereas most online multiplayer games are over in an hour-and-a-half. Having three human allies in a team game makes cleaning up your opponent much faster once it's been decided than if your allies were AI. Also, human opponents can read the tea leaves and recognize when a game has been decided, say "gg", and quit or surrender.

In online multiplayer you can type-chat with your allies, coordinate teamwork and two-fleet attacks, and even use real voice-over-IP voice communication--you can talk to people. The single player game lacks that completely. "I'm worried about Planet so-and-so" just doesn't compare to this dialog:

Team 2: Why are you guys chuckling? What do you find so funny?

Team 1: We're not going to tell you what's going on, but let's just say, "It's like a giant space penis slowly approaching you from behind." (Everyone breaks out laughing.)

As far as I know that type of interaction is completely lacking in single player.

In online multiplayer you are liable to actually lose at at least 40% of the time (which means more suspenseful and intense games) whereas win percentages against the AI in single player are, presumably, much higher.

In online multiplayer you can't really play in a "relaxxed" fashion because you are actually competing against cunning human opponents that aren't playing with one arm tied behind their backs (like the AI does). Thus you can't really build a capital-ships only fleet or a mixxed fleet containing non-strategic units. Rather, the challenge of going up against other people forces you to make constant strategic decisions. Since it is a strategy game, choosing to build the wrong units and/or managing them improperly could cost you and your team the game. Occassionally you might be able to play a little "Sim City in Space" if you start out in the "eco pocket" between allies in a team game and your job is to build up a strong economy and feed credits to your fighting allies (who are on the flanks). However, even that needs to be done right. In contrast, in the single player game the computer AI doesn't have the capacity to micromanage its ships and fleets properly nor to choose strategic capital ships and frigates, nor can it choose the right capital ship abilities to level up nor can it use them at strategic times. So, basically, even though the computer might be given extra credits and resources, it really does have its hands tied behind its back.

Given all of these differences between single player and online multiplayer, would it be correct to conclude that they are, essentially, almost completely separate games? Which one offers the greater challenge, the most suspense, and the most intensity? I do encourage people who have never contemplated the possibility of coming online (which seems like 95% of the game's purchasers, most of whom probably don't know this discussion forum exists) to come try the game against real humans and see if they think it's a completely different game.

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

WHIPperSNAPper2008

Join Date 03/2008

+126

Here are some ideas have that Stardock and Ironclad might use to promote the game.

For a "patch", create a brand new Online Multiplayer Tutorial that would walk people through the process of creating an ICO account, logging on to ICO, and explaining basic type-chat commands, how to join games, how to switch channels, how to manage player names, and how to work the Friends List.

Make the game a little more accessible to new players by keeping an internal track of player stats for individual CD keys. For the first month after a player has logged in, allow them to access a special new players lobby and Join Game menu that can only be seen by other players who have been online for one month or less. Of course, they should be given the option of seeing regular Sins games. The idea is to keep the experienced players from being able to see or join the new player games.

Increase custom map activity by allowing auto-downloads for Galaxy Forge-made custom maps. This would result in a flurry of people making new maps and updating old ones (so they work with the current versions of the game.) Basically--custom content is the same as having people improve the quality and features of your product for free! You just have to give them a reason to make your game better and more varied.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The reasons why I don't play Sins online;

1. Games are far too short. I like long games on very big maps.

2. In order too make games playable in short amounts of time, I assume you have all speed settings to max, yes?

2a. With all speeds to max this greatly limits their effects on strategy. This also make the game rather dull.

3. I absolutely hate games that require 'correct' build orders in order to win. This tendancy makes human players just as predictable as AI players. And most RTS games devolve into this. In short, the longer any RTS game is played online, the more predictable and similar the games get. For me, MP gets boring faster than SP does.

Quoting CenturionJixra,

reply 1

Anyway, since these are essentially different games, might it make some sense for Ironclad and Stardock to try to promote the online multiplayer game to the 95% of Sins purchasers who are completely unaware of it and who don't know about the forums? Might that encourage some people who became bored with the AI and who set the game aside in order to play other games to rediscover Sins? In so doing, might that increase the overall amount of enthusiasm for the Sins game, increasing the amount of buzz about on the Internet and amongst people in real-life, increasing the amount of Sins and expansion sales?

Here are some ideas have that Stardock and Ironclad might use to promote the game.

For a "patch", create a brand new Online Multiplayer Tutorial that would walk people through the process of creating an ICO account, logging on to ICO, and explaining basic type-chat commands, how to join games, how to switch channels, how to manage player names, and how to work the Friends List.

Make the game a little more accessible to new players by keeping an internal track of player stats for individual CD keys. For the first month after a player has logged in, allow them to access a special new players lobby and Join Game menu that can only be seen by other players who have been online for one month or less. Of course, they should be given the option of seeing regular Sins games. The idea is to keep the experienced players from being able to see or join the new player games.

Increase custom map activity by allowing auto-downloads for Galaxy Forge-made custom maps. This would result in a flurry of people making new maps and updating old ones (so they work with the current versions of the game.) Basically--custom content is the same as having people improve the quality and features of your product for free! You just have to give them a reason to make your game better and more varied.

As for this post, I concur. Specifically the auto download feature. I was kinda surprised that wasn't there. Even though I'll never use these features, I easily see how it'll enhance your games.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I absolutely hate games that require 'correct' build orders in order to win. This tendancy makes human players just as predictable as AI players. And most RTS games devolve into this. In short, the longer any RTS game is played online, the more predictable and similar the games get. For me, MP gets boring faster than SP does.

I also dislike the nature of multiplayer to require optimized build orders. I don't like the term "correct" because it implies that anything non-standard is non-viable. This isn't true; I've seen many weird build orders in many games that have proven highly successful. Instead, I use the term optimized. That is, you have to ensure your resources aren't being wasted. You can't overspend and you can't underspend; you have to be within a certain sweet spot. I think that sweet spot is a bit more forgiving than most people make it out to be, but it's annoying to find it and try to stay inside of it.

That said, I don't think RTS games "devolve" into searches for optimized build orders. Anyone who becomes too predictable is subject to getting countered. At a certain point, you can't improve any more just by having a better build order, and the game starts to revolve around strategy. The problem I have is that you need to learn all the build orders and their counters and their timings before you even get there. It's awesome once you do, but it takes months just to pick up a game.

Successfully updated karma reason!

WHIPperSNAPper2008

Join Date 03/2008

+126

Quoting VarekRaith,

reply 2

1. Games are far too short. I like long games on very big maps.

Fair enough.

2. In order too make games playable in short amounts of time, I assume you have all speed settings to max, yes?

Yes, but it really isn't a problem since Normal speed feels too slow once you get used to the fast speeds. Some people would even prefer to have a faster speed than Fast.

2a. With all speeds to max this greatly limits their effects on strategy. This also make the game rather dull.

The online game is chock full of strategy, which is part of what maintains players' fascination with it. It might be different than the strategy that you'd use on huge maps that take days to play, but then again, my contention is that the single player and online multiplayer games are, in essence, two very different games. I think one major component of the difference is that human players can be unpredictable and creative, they can even engage in teamwork, and they can communicate (sometimes directly over voice comm), and you have to recognize what your opponents are doing, anticipate what they're going to do, and plan to overcome it.

I think that that is a popular misconception about the online game. I have seen people use numerous build orders and strategies, a great many of which are not wrong or non-ideal or necessarily losing strategies. Would you consider logging on to ICO and playing a couple games, say ten online games, to see what you think?

Successfully updated karma reason!

So why not make a game that lets you script your build order and share it with other players? I've never understood why strategy games don't do that.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I find the Ai far more predictable than humans. I will predict that in any game you play against the Ai, it will send 3-5 siege frigates to an undefended border colony to destroy it. It always does. I also predict that the Ai will almost always turn and run at the sight of even a slightly larger fleet, eventhough it may have more advanced ships.

In MP games, there are popular strategies that you see pop up, tried tested and true. But you also get new ones and people making variations of old ones. I've actually recently seen a decline in the good old Assailant+egg rush, probably because more and more people are learning to defend against it and even stop it dead. This is a cycle that will continue. Killer strategy forms, people adapt. Ai can only adapt to a certain degree. Plus the Ai at higher levels cheats by having increased income among other things. I'd much rather have a fair fight against a human.

Games are far too short. I like long games on very big maps.

You know, you aren't the only one. What you ought to do is find some people who share your tastes, and play with them, you can then play for awhile, and when someone needs to leave you save and come back to it another day. A lot of people do this and play against multiple Ai. It's like single player with a more competent allies! Give that a shot.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Deceiver_0,

reply 6

I agree with this. I spent most of my game time playing with my roommate in impossible odds senarios. (Right now we're working on two hard teams. Getting our butts handed to us, but getting there.) Playing with him is a million times more interesting than playing by myself. I have yet to see a comp stomp type game on ICO, but I have heard that they happen and I guess I'm just on at the wrong time. I'd advise trying this out though, it can change your game experience drastically.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ive been the forums awhile and only recently updated vanilla to 1.16 and ive foudn the playerbase only has about 10 max on lobby1 at the peaks, i want to get entrenchment to find more people to play versus but I personally do like comp stomping unfair ai because the ai has its hands tied I liek it to get teh extra reasources si it can be at the same level of tech and fleet as me.

All who dont play online start playing online so those who are new online can actually get a game.

All you need is to make that account and update...thats all.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting gugabalog,

reply 8

Ive been the forums awhile and only recently updated vanilla to 1.16 and ive foudn the playerbase only has about 10 max on lobby1 at the peaks

Nah, that's simply exaggerated. At peaks there are about 120-200 people online, and while most of them are ingame there are always games open or new ones pop up. It's far from impossible to get a game going at US/Europe primetimes. Still, everyone is ofcourse welcome to our little community, it's time to make it the #1 online RTS

Successfully updated karma reason!

Still, everyone is ofcourse welcome to our little community, it's time to make it the #1 online RTS

Agreed.

Successfully updated karma reason!

So why not make a game that lets you script your build order and share it with other players? I've never understood why strategy games don't do that.

its called the stragtegy forums

Successfully updated karma reason!

So why not make a game that lets you script your build order and share it with other players? I've never understood why strategy games don't do that.

The problem here is that build orders are more like guidelines than a recipe book. The exact expenditures (and timing of the expenditures) will vary based on the map and how your opponent is playing. As I said originally, it's really about finding a sweet spot in terms of resource management and staying there. Does my build order include expenditures for the extra units I lose to an aggressive rusher, or the price of those extra repair bays I needed to buy? No, I have to accommodate for these dynamic needs on the spot. This involves knowing how to balance expenditures, which is why a build order is more like a guideline.

Still, everyone is ofcourse welcome to our little community, it's time to make it the #1 online RTS

The problem with Sins as a popular multiplayer RTS is its long game time. One of the problems is simply statistics. If the average game time is 30 minutes, then we can expect a fair chunk of games will take more than an hour. If I can only stay and play for an hour, there is a strong probability I will have to leave prematurely. If I choose to play I may ruin the game for everyone else by leaving, if I choose not to play I am one fewer player online. Neither bodes well for Sins as a large and successful multiplayer community.

I find successful multiplayer RTS games have something in common: average game time is under 25 minutes. It's not that people necessarily like short games, as many in this forum have noted they might enjoy even longer than we have now. Rather, it simply has to do that these short time intervals are ideal for getting into a game and being reasonably sure it will be done before you have to leave. Any longer and people get driven away because they simply can't make the time.

Successfully updated karma reason!

WHIPperSNAPper2008

Join Date 03/2008

+126

Darvin, I think you have a point about game length. However, this game must have sold over 700,000 copies by now, so you'd think that at least 1% of those people would want to play online multiplayer and would be "gamers" who would have the three hours needed now and then to be able to play 98% of the Sins games that are played online. So, while I think that game length is definitely a factor, I think there has to be much more too ithe game's low player counts.

Successfully updated karma reason!

One of my larger problems with online play, is sportsmanship. Quite frankly, it seems to be lacking across the board. Many players only care about victory, and accordingly, play to "crush" their opponents. Often times players like this will be quite rude/insulting along the way, as well.

I also agree with Darvin3 a bit, from post 12. The game length is hard to manage, especially when you are playing with strangers. One good thing, you can save the game and resume it later. But again, with strangers it is often hard to arrange this; also there is the problem that sometimes the saved games fail to resume properly, or wind up not saved accurately (they load into a point before/after you actually saved).

Another thing that frankly pisses me off about multiplayer are people who put in absolutely no effort into the game, and/or quit early into the game for no reason, or immediately upon losing their first cap. It's frustrating to have your games truncated all of the damned time just because someone decided multiplayer wasn't worth the time to play - just the time to queue up. There needs to be a more detailed statistics/tracking system in place for multiplayer that allows these caustic players to be indentified and avoided.

I loathe having my time wasted by such people when I could have been having a decent match elsewhere... which feeds back into my original point - spotsmanship! It's easier to play with a small group of friends, rather than risk one's time with a small pool of players, many of whom seem to be non-commital pricks - which feeds into one of the issues CenturionJixra mentioned: low player count. To resolve this, IC/SD need to bring a little something more to the multiplayer aspect of SoaSE - which CJ has already supplied a number of helpful ideas for just in this thread.

I do not think that SoaSE is two separate games, and I think it would be a mistake to attempt to market it as such. SoaSE enjoys a goodly level of success as it is. I do believe, however, that it could enjoy considerably more success if it's multiplayer experience were improved. Why? Because multiplayer generates more word of mouth to a more diversified consumer group than just the singleplayer experience; and thus I believe it worthwhile to promote all sides of the product, instead of focusing intimately upon just one aspect. That said, I also believe the actual gaming itself in SoaSE, both multi and singleplayer is fantastic, and I don't think that the mechanics of that should be changed (with exception to new content from expansions and what have you, of course). The mechanics of the delivery system (ICO), however - could certainly use a boost.

-Itharus

Successfully updated karma reason!