I do understand, I really do. But SINS doesnt need to be "bigger",  its fricking huge already, you just cant access that hugeness without encountering enough lag to make CIV 5 look like a finely tuned machine...

Just make it better I mean seriously, its the only game of recent years that could actually get away with adding nothing but multicore support and a graphics engine polish, then slapping a sticker saying "sins 2" on the box and we would all flock to buy it with pleasure and joy!!

As for eve, thats a very different kettle of fish as EVE`s server side code is multi core based. only the client system is single core, and for good reason.

As one Admin of CCCP forum once told me, "eve code is its like a vengeful, sentient snake made of spite, hatred and irony. Thus working on it, especially updating the old stuff, is only a job for coding superheroes"

With regards to SINS, I`m just longing for a sequal.  Remember, the world ends in 2012, they need to get their skates on

I see what your saying but Honestly most of us wouldn't. We would be pissed that we spend 40 bucks to buy a new sequel with one new feature no matter how large it is(not to mention the game is playable with its current single core support for most of us). Im just stating the obvious.

Well, it is a standalone expansion. they might add the multicore support if the engine overhauls are that significant.

Seriously--the obsession with multicore.  You're talking apples and oranges.  An imporvement on the game with added content or a radical rewrite and complete recreation.  Multicore isn't offering anything unless they glam the game up enormously--and while it would help with the large maps some, it isn't a deal breaker to expand Sins without it.

I do video editing and use multicore but you can do a lot on single core systems, especially at the level of Sins.  I've never had my cpu time out playing or had the game stutter to a halt on my old system which is a single core Athlon XP.

I understand your point (yes, I am special).  Before some of the patches I did have a heavy load peaking at over 90% but that was when there were some terrible bugs and glitches and it was only on large, large games.  What was more of a problem back then was minidumps and desyncs for me.  Most of that got fixed to a degree making it playable.  Some of the "sluggish" performance (which I did see) was completely alieviated by using TSOP.

So now we are looking at adding the beta to this and it promises changes in the engine and graphics methods to allow a real improvement in game play.  I think it might work.

My view isn't, "If it's not perfect kill it" mine is, "If it's not perfect, perfect it".

I have let a 10 player game run for six hours and the worst that happened was the game crashed on quitting or took an inordinately long time to shut down.  I also ran the LAA executable and have run the beta and my comp with it and no adverse effects.

Wait until the new release is out, see if it lives up to the billing, then explain what's wrong.

And strategy games are probably the best target for heavy multithreading that can be carried out on two cores - by having an AI and a simulation thread.

Timing issues, however, make that horrendeous to code...