Here's my list:

1. Fix the crash bug.
2. Replace repulsion (advent gaurdian ability)
3. Replace RA
4. Fix Malice + Brilliance
5. Faster culture rate spread through phase lanes.


These things alone would greatly improve the game. (As we can see from the 1.04 patch, minor fixes go extremely far in balancing the game).


Stardock is doing a great job so far with patches. More of the same, applied liberally, will make this good game into a great game.

Allow me to play the part of a cynical realist and pragmatist, or if you prefer : the ha-shatan.


300 on ICO ?
200 on ICO ?
100 on ICO ?

You call that a "vital casual gamer majority" ?!!


If I were working at Ironclad or Stardock, I would not lose a second of sleep on that.

They sold well over TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND (200 000+) units of Sins, and you make a federal case out of, give or take, a few hundreds.

10% of 200 000 is 20 000
1 % of 200 000 is 2 000
0.1 of 200 000 is 200

Your "vital casual gamer majority" is just that : about ZERO.1% !

Of course, a representative of Ironclad or Stardock could pounce on my statement and reassure the ZERO.1% that they care, that they really, really care.

As far as I'm concerned, Sins is very obviously a Single-Player game.

The real "majority" (even if we count people playing on a LAN with those who (try to) play on ICO) is composed of loners who exclusively play SP.

I sympathize with your ICO woes, but frankly, they have nothing to do, absolutely nothing, with my crash-free enjoyment of Sins.

Since the July 2007 version of the Beta, Sins has crashed on me (with a mini-dump) only once : one crash in 10 months -- not bad.

Of course, I'm not part of the ZERO.1% who suffer on ICO.

I'm sorry if I'm being a "bitch", but really, I'm just being a realist. Sins is an excellent game for SP.

I don't care about ICO, and 99.9% (OK, let's say 99.8) of people who have bought the game don't seem to care either.

And they NEVER visit this forum.


"Pleased to meet you.
Hope you guessed my game."

Cybermage, maybe you should grow some cajones and experience playing the game against human intelligence and not just AI. You might discover that it's much more interesting and challenging.

I haven't had any desire to play the game in single player mode against AI since I started playing it online via ICO.

   It's not a question of alpha-male machismo. (And G*d knows we have a lot of that running around on this forum, with all those who brag about their exploits on ICO).

As I have recently stated on other threads, ad nauseam, it's a question of :

Limited leisure time.

The real-world "casual gamer majority" don't have a lot of free time to dedicate to gaming, especially to one game in particular (when there are other interesting ones).

The majority have schoolbooks to study, term papers to write, full-time or part-time jobs (after school), a family life, other leisure activities, other games to play, etc.

I have gone to ICO, and finding a suitable game for my skill level and my tastes has been, by itself, a huge waste of time.

Then, when I did get into a game, most crashed or had to stop (sooner or later), for one reason or another.

The real-world "casual gamer majority", of which I am part, don't have time to waste on ICO, especially when one realizes that only ZERO.1 to ZERO.2 % of people who have bought the game show themselves on ICO.

____________________________


Besides that, you must know that the "A.I." is not some dumb robot : it is a complex, logical program coded by very bright human programmers.

Consequently, when I play Sins against "hard comps", I'm really playing against some smart human software engineers, who spend whole days at the Ironclad offices designing, programming and testing sophisticated A.I. codes.

Brad Wardell of Stardock's design and coding of the legendary Galactic Civilizations II A.I. is a great example to illustrate that a human gamer can experience a lot of challenge playing against the A.I. :

because, in reality, he is playing against Brad Wardell's intelligence !   

I knew that my math was a very rough approximation : it was not provided to be taken so literally.

I was just playing "Devil's Advocate" against the OP's utopian fantasy.

0.1% of 200 000 games sold is 200.

OK. I must be wrong, with my "flawed math" : it might not be so low.

Suppose I concede to you that, rather, it is 1% : that would be 2 000 gamers.

You're going to tell me that 2 000 different game owners have tried to play on ICO ?

If you are right, that still is not the « vital "casual gamer" majority » the OP mentions at the very end of his inaugural post.

A mere ONE percent !

Still not satisfied with my "flawed math" ?!

OK. I might be wrong, again.

Suppose I concede to you that, rather, it is 10% : that would be 20 000 gamers.

You're going to ask me to believe that 20 000 different game owners have regularly tried to play on ICO ?!

Even if you then were right, that would still not represent a « vital "casual gamer" majority ».

My point is that Ironclad and Stardock sold well over 200 000 game units (the most recent, exact number is a corporate secret). If they had 200 or 2 000 or 20 000 unhappy campers (after their ICO frustrations), that still would leave them the real "casual gamer majority" :

Between 100 000 and 180 000 customers (at least) who don't have the time to play MP, and who only play alone (in SP).

For those 180 000+ customers, the game very rarely crashes (unless they use unreliable mods or have problematic PCs).

If I were an Ironclad or Stardock poobah, I would realize that the financial future of the Sins franchise is there :

SINGLE-PLAYER 4X/RTS HYBRID (as designed and advertised, in the very first place!).

Fixing MP and ICO represents a big headache for Ironclad and Stardock, and an investment of many person-hours of paid work :

It is really worth it, in a business sense ?

Consider this :

In a few months, the Demigod beta (which I have pre-ordered) is going to start, and eventually, StarCraft 2 will be released.

How many people will then be left, on ICO ?   

I know my crew only plays via LAN/Hamachi, not because they don’t want the “real hardcore aethetic,” but because the annoying posturing, “Clan L337,” and other crap is kindly isolated to ICO and we, largely, just want to play together cooperatively and have a good time. Don’t have to deal with Other People’s Children and we like it that way.

I imagine that the bulk of gameplay Sins is seeing is likewise comfortably isolated.

I think that, rather than just speak about casaul gamers, we should also speak of informed gamers. Those like the OP are informed about the ongoing development of sins and knows that the multiplayer problems are being worked on. And even though they might decide to stop playing for now, they will wait until the next patch to give the game another try. While the un-informed players might simply pick up the game today, play it, crash time and time again, download the latest patch, crash again, and decide to throw the game away without visiting the forums, contacting tech support or asking other players for advice.

Thus my point is, yes right now there might be fewer players playing, but once the problems are fixed, they will return. And those that simply leave and forget about the game, those would have left anyway once they played the game for a few weeks and move on to the latest high profile release.

So im not worrying yet, personally im one who is waiting for the patch, playing only occasionally.

and lol centurion, im pretty sure its spelled "cojones", not cajones.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist that Sins is not really suited for a huge multiplayer online community. It's just way too complex of a game. They could fix every bug and still you might only multiply the number of players online by 10.

Given that fact (and yes, it is a fact), it makes more sense for Stardock to put more time and energy into enhancing the single player part of the game - with the biggest current issue being the lack of a campaign.

It really is the biggest missing piece of the puzzle in my opinion. But I am just one of the masses - the vast majority of people who are actually making Stardock the most money. Yes, the hardcore gamers would love to see a better multiplayer setup, but that has to take a back seat to improving the single player portion of the game.

Having said all of that, I see no reason why Stardock couldn't do both. But one has to be more important than the other. My guess is that the expansion pack will have a campaign mode. We'll see.

(1) Compared to RTSs like Starcraft, Sins is simple in the extreme. Pretty much every aspect of the game is arrived at naively (given that you have the 'hidden' information like the armor system and the real damages). So while there may be an argument that this isn't a terribly multiplayer-'friendly' game, this isn't it.

(2) It doesn't have to take a back seat to anything. You speak as if only hardcore competitive gamers play in multiplayer or over LAN etc. The issues that crop up don't just show up for hardcore competitive players. There isn't some function in the code that makes a hardcoreness index and decides to minidump the player based on this index. It affects anyone that does any kind of multiplayer. You might not have any friends that like to play Sins, but a lot of other casual players will. So by your argument, the majority of people playing multiplayer are casual gamers -> the majority of people affected by multiplayer issues are casual gamers.

(3) They have a separate multiplayer-focused dev team. So they are doing both.

(4) False dichotomy. If any aspect of the game is improved, every aspect of the game is improved. If there are fewer bugs that affect multiplayer, there will almost inevitably be fewer bugs that affect single player as well. This goes especially for game balance.

(5) This has already been pretty much confirmed in an IGN interview as stated earlier in the thread.

Tell me about it. And yet we still have people like Mettra hopelessly arguing a losing point.

1) SINS is much more complex than SC when it comes to multiplayer gaming. It's not even close. Having played both for more than my fair share, it's not even a point worth arguing. If Mettra wants to argue semantics about what complex means and try to parse between tactical versus strategic complexity, then he can do that with his buddies. I am not wasting my time on what is obvious to any RTS gamer.

2) Only hardcore SINS players will bother to play online with any regularity. Casual SC players come in droves. It's a much easier game to play online. See above. Multiplayer SINS is and will continue to take a backseat to single player SINS - and rightfully so.

3) Great point. His first. And last. Although a ratio of 5:1 is the best any multiplayer enthusiast should hope for in terms of team size and effort. With the "1" taking a backseat to the "5", obviously.

4) The online problems vastly outweigh the single player problems. To the extent that fixing single player problems helps online play (not the other way around), then that is good for everyone. But for Stardock to treat the problems equally in terms of allocating resources and effort would be bad business. Check . . .

5) Mate.

Amen.

I'm happy if I find 70.

(1) You'll have to forgive me. I wasn't aware that we were combatants in a pissing contest. I'll try to come prepared next time.

(2) If it's not worth arguing, why are you arguing about it? I've played SC for 10 years and worked my way up to a very high level of play. I think I can have a say in the complexity of one vs. the other.

(3) If you're saying that something is more x than something else, then you need to know what x is. If I say 'Jim is taller than John' and use some unknown definition of the word 'taller' [for example, maybe my unknown definition of 'taller' is 'quieter'], then I'm just spouting nonsense to anyone who doesn't know my special definition. In the same way, you need a definition for 'complex' if you are going to make a claim that 'something is more complex than something else'.

What you're saying is 'it doesn't matter what complex means, just that I'm right'. This isn't a semantic argument.

In common speech, an argument of semantics is when people become confused because of different words with the same meaning. For example:

Birds know where to fly because of genetic memory.
Birds know where to fly because of instinct.

These statements are probably talking about the same thing. One is just more specific than the other. It appears to be an argument (one disagreeing with the other), but it's just a matter of semantics.

(4) It isn't very difficult at all to make a case that Starcraft is exponentially more complex than this game. I won't even go into strategies and tactics at all.

The races in this game are damn near identical. The only big differentiator is the capital ships. Everything else is graphics and progression differences (e.g. one race will get armor before another but shields after another).

In Starcraft, the races don't play anything alike and have completely different armies on every level, and only become more different as they go up the tech tree.

In this game, there is no micromanagement besides perhaps the new Illuminators. In Starcraft, micro is probably over half the strength of every single unit in the game.

In this game there are a countably finite number of paths of movement. In Starcraft, there are an 'uncountably' finite number of paths of movement. This game has global positioning but not local positioning.

Countering in this game is building one (at most two) ship types (out of a total 5) and sending them into battle. Countering in Starcraft is changing the type of buildings you're using, your overall unit mix, and your micro.

(5) I guess you've never been to a LAN party. You should try them out some time. Multiplayer is not just online (even if the majority of online players are competitive players, which I doubt).

It's only easier to play the game online in that it won't crash on you. If you're saying that this game takes more skill to play competitively than Starcraft... well, I'll let everyone else here be the judge of your statement.

(6) Then why should all resources be diverted to the single player game?

(7) Any bug fix of any kind, any improvement to the game of any kind, is an improvement to the whole game. You make it sound as if fixing bugs in multiplayer causes bugs in single player. The only difference between the single player game and the multiplayer game is that one or more of the AI are replaced by a human being. Oh and that you're some kind of creature to be hated if you play multiplayer, apparently.

(8) I agree, resources should be allocated to things that are the most in need of fixing... ohwait.

(9) Yes, it is a terrible defeat on my part because I intend for all that play single player to suffer and not enjoy the game. /sarcasm

I actually am not a competitive player in this game and play mostly single player.

----------
Where are you guys getting these numbers of people online from? As far as I'm aware, Draginol said that was only the number of people logged into the forums.