Hi all,
I know there are other lists of suggestions but these I have not seen (maybe missed; in which case feel free to ignore superfluous parts).
Do please add your own, but try to give some reasoning behind it. Merely stating ‘I want new ships types’ or ‘improve the sounds’ is not adding anything 8-).
Also please do not start arguments; this is supposed to be a list for Stardock to decide on, not a spot to argue whether or not something should be in. Personally I always promote option: never less, always more, when it comes to choices.
Please refer to specific points with their ref #.
Ok then, let’s start with the complex one.
1) I think one of the more disappointing and very fixable issues would be that combat is rather frenzied yet static and requires either meticulous micromanagement (which the speed of the game does not really allow for) or just a rather generalistic fleet-vs-fleet clash approach (everyone target that Cap/Hoshi etc.) in the current setup. In order to give peeps more influence on how to conduct a battle, three things immediately come to mind: two below (combo) and one as separate point (#2).
First of all implement (sounds easy hmm? - I know it is not…) the already suggested Combat Attitude/Stance: Aggressive/Defensive/Protective/Scout etc. (I would also promote ‘Taunt’ and ‘Harass’ settings).
At the same time, put much more freedom into ‘levelling’ your cap ships since currently all L10 caps are 3-3-3-1 which means you only decide the order in which they develop certain areas - a minimal influence at best (and none at all in the end; you should start with little ‘direction’, and end with maximum differentiation I think). Now if you combine these two, you can build (I prefer to take TEC examples since they are straighforward, but am not blind to the fact many more complex balances will need extensive re-configuration for this type of change) a fleet that really has individual style: say you make 1 tank Kol on Stand Ground & Taunt, then 2 offensive Cap’s behind on Defensive Guard (so they don’t move off too far; not sure if cohesion should override stance), and you put your Dunov on Protect/Chicken etc.
We should really have a setting for all caps ships to Flee (nearest phase line or phase-line-last-used, I would really like that last option on Retreat as well) at either 0% shield or 50% health (as done very well in Warlords Battlecry III).
Then, you have some influence on the battlefield, and you also take away the MP dogma ‘always go for the enemy cap first’ if you play it right…hopefully.
It is specifically the combination of these elements that would make combat and therefore, the whole game, much more enjoyable I think.
Btw, if I make a tank, maybe it should be slower to accelerate and stop (et cetera ad nauseam).
2) At which time I should mention that for point 1 to work and in general, for large scenarios to still work well, it would be rather nice to have the simple elegance of 0.50% and 0.25% speed settings. Fast games can be fun (I often 2x it) but you get so much more depth and have such an easier time learning the game if things can be slowed down. I never did understand why a few games only have multipliers, not dividers…must be a really cheap calculator
.
3) I think in multiplayer, speed settings should be part of the options before you start…some peeps want the whole MP game in 4x speed (speed-chess; quite nerve-wrecking) and while this is not generally my style, I think many would like the option. Quicky-Sins! (No you can have the TM for that.)
4) While realizing planet development was never meant to be within the scope of Sins, I find the whole ‘space development only’ thing rather narrow. You have made an impressive, one might argue (with the implementation of fleet-info icons around gravity wells and such) spectacular zoom-all-the-way game environment and I think my immersion would greatly benefit if I could zoom in all the way to a planet’s surface and do things there. Not many things - that would shift focus too much. You could then even do ground attacks next, but I realize this may be an expansion-pack or Sins II type change. Still…breathing some life into planets (if only to find goodies/baddies…send down scout parties recover umm…mini(arti)facts?) would add ambiance I think.
No, minifact is mine, can’t have it
.
5) Where are the polls on this website? They are in my view conspicuously absent. A company that promotes the Bill of Rights should not appear not to listen to players. Ask us what we think of the way in which the game should go - if you put together polls yourself, chances are you actually get answers you can use…and you can do it at times when the ‘newsfeed’ appears to be...hibernating (you should never keep the same message at the top for more than 7 days I think).
6) The predictability of Random Systems is beginning to seriously degrade my game fun. I am I phear an explorer at heart and the last time we started a random game I immediately knew where everyone was as soon as I saw my position towards the sun. Bad. I would really like to have (as many 4X titles but also games like say Age of Empires etc. offer) a wide choice in settings concerning what the galaxy will look like. Everything from phase line density to chances of Artifacts and specific research ‘concerns’.
7) Now this has probably been asked a hundred times, I just want to add the example: CoX* probably holds the world record when it comes to customizing ‘the outside’. In Sins I would expect decals, texture choices, ship model choices, and yes most of all, the ability to off-line (or in some ingenious way you may yet think of, in-game) ‘design your own’. Anything from the relatively simple Sword of the Stars modular type development, to the in-depth choices of games like Master of Orion 2 and Pax Imperia.
No, I refuse to use the word ‘skins’, I am too old for this particular linguistic anomaly
.
*City of Heroes/Villains.
8) I like smaller games as much as I like huge ones. Can we, pretty-please with space-debris on top, have more freedom in setting max-ships and such? Cap-ships only; other restrictions.
Don’t worry, even if with a small fleet (say 25 or 50 ships max in game…per side that is) you will not really ‘need’ it I will still buy Entrench
- and even with small fleets the mini-expansion will by the looks of it be more than useful seeing the upgrade notions and such. And after: well the cost could be prohitive but if not, look at the WBC3 ‘rules’ options: No Dragons, No Towers, etc. How about No Starbases (as option!)
9) And for my final trick today - yes it is easy to just think up stuff I know but I really want to keep the ‘suggestions’ thing rolling it is as essential to the longevity of this game as the mods & modders are - I suggest a UI improvement.
Many of us run much higher than 1024x768 (I run 2560x1600, for instance, and only know one person with a 17”) and I have oodles of space that is unused and that could be used very well for say, most particularly, a miniature (well 4 parts, for the 4 main subjects, might be best) Research interface. I would rather like to have it in-game all the time.
Dear folk, the research screen is the only screen Sins still puts up as a temporary ‘blind’ and for anyone who bought the game (haven’t we all…) the simplest representation of the full research lines (small, without text even, just tiny open-box type icons in the right spot that you can ‘check’) will be enough to make the choices without blotting our screen. After all, we have the research map that came with the box to consult…and for those who bought it online without box you can always get this in printable version I trust?
With this, high-resolution players can make use of open space, and lower-rez players can choose to not have the system that blocks their view.
And yes, we want hotkeys to place or hide those spankynew Research ‘hot-screens’. I think they can be made in the same general style (but more miniaturized) as the ‘new’ Market/Pirate interface bit.
Well that oughtta keep you ‘Dockies off the street for a bit 
As always, thanks for a wonderful game,
Lucas aka Sinful
PS Edits by me never on content, only typo's/style etc.
* ...; for the eye sees not itself,
* But by reflection, by some other things.
-
* Julius Caesar