I'm really happy to finally play a game like Homeworld (in looks) that incorporates so much depth and so many more options compared to traditional rts games of today. When you sit down to play soase, relax, take a deep breath and enjoy a whole different pace of play where the outcome isn't determined by how fast you can click your mouse in a half an hour. There is also this handy little feature called 'save game' which ,amazingly, can even be used in multiplayer. Speaking of handy features, I wish these forums had an option to filter profane language for those of us who don't care to read the lazy garbage.

All this person would have to do is create his/her own game at 'normal' speed and wait until people show up. There are some people on the extremes who will be playing at the slowest and fastest settings, but I'm guessing the majority of players will just use the regular settings. Really the people who would only play on the fastest setting are the people who drop out 40 mins into the game, and you probably don't want to play with them anyway.

Now, hold on, let's think about this. Obviously, all the gamers who like to opt for the fastest possible speed currently play on fast (a quick check of Ironclad Online shows that the games currently available are split roughly evenly between Normal and Fast). People do not opt for the fastest possible speed seem to be okay with the game as is, so we can assume that they either can find slower-paced games regardless, or like the game to be exactly Fast, no slower, no faster. So, what happens when we add a new speed?

Well, first, the players who opt for the fastest possible speed switch to Very Fast. Note that this does not directly impact the community of players who like slower paced games in any way. In no way does this impact the people who's natural reaction ISN'T to turn the knob all the way up to the right. They couldn't care less whether the half of the games they don't play are Fast or Very Fast. The people who like to play on Fast and on no other speed will suffer from a loss of potential opponents, but the people who like to play on Normal seem to manage just fine, so I imagine they'll live, too.

One potential issue is that the "default speed" stance and the influx of new players (who, I would like to remind you, will be sinking their teeth into something they'd never consider trying before, and just might graduate from "Starcraft junkie" to "bonafide 4X gamer") could make looking for a game at a speed slower than Fastest like looking for a needle in a haystack. Fortunately, Ironclad, in their infinite wisdom, has provided us with an option to filter games based on game speed.

In closing - yes, a new, faster speed option would be great. And a slower one, too, just to provide some balance.

If you don't think fast is fast enough then I'm sure someone will create a mod at some point that will make it faster. Just be patient. Of course you could always endeavor to make the mod yourself.

no, the game is too short/fast! I hope there will be a "Slower" setting with a future patch.

Or, alternatively, Ironclad can just put one in their next patch.

the changes to make the game slower or faster are literally able to be done in a minute, they would need to change a bit of code of the buttons adding in more levels of slow and fast.

Because, once IC tries to please the halo kiddies and whatnot it's a perilous road to take. More likely than not they'll be going that road even more and more until we who actually like the game for what it is (and not another StarCraft, which I think you all who want the game to be faster should be playing to begin with) don't even recognize the game anymore let alone want to play it.

If IC goes down this road I for one won't be playing the game anymore as I can see these kiddies running full in ICO thus leaving no slower paced games available.

I DID NOT buy the game to see it turned to another crappy RTS.

I'll also be voting with my wallet in the future (expansion) as I only buy games I like, and I loathe traditional RTS games.

I agree, this game is special because it cater to the 4x audience, who are patient and like to get that epic feel in their games.
These kind of games must take a long time, because part of what makes it epic is that it takes time to get something done and plan your empire's every expansion or offensive against your enemy.
Had it been C&C 3 in space I would've hated it as much as I hate C&C 3 for it's quick gameplay and catering to the console audience who typically wants instant gratification in their games and are quick to change games if they don't immediatly provide that. Not to mention theres literally tonnes of those kind of rts's out there, so no use catering to the lowest common denominator.

I bought the CE download and now paid another 25 to get it on disc as well, because the game got that special thing I've missed since I played games like Space Empires IV, but also provides a fun multiplayer part where you can play games at 6-7 hours on 20planet maps with friends or spend the weekend and go for a larger map.
Fantastic I say and well done Iron Clad, you got my money and now also turned me into a sycophant
I'm Epsilon in Ironclad Online btw

Let's be clear here guys:

We're not opposed to providing additional speed options (both to slow the pace and increase the pace). But there is no setting that will ever make Sins into the typical action RTS type game.

6 minutes per planet?

I just played a 2v2 with me and 3 AIs on a 16 planet map. So that game should have taken ~96 minutes. We'll say between 1.5 and 2 hours. I finally resolved it after 3 hours.

Is this theory assuming beat players surrender? Thus saving the long treck across the galaxy to finish them? A boring, tedious, and in this game looooooong process?

I don't mind long drawn out games... but I do mind taking an extra hour or so to resolve a game I know I'm going to win... eventually.



My thought is that we're doing it wrong. Games would most certainly resolve faster if we knew how to beat the snot out people efficiently. I for one know when I can cream the planet next to me, but I certainly don't know the quickest, most effective way to do it.

Frogboy, can you tell me this? On a small map, say 7 or 8 planets, with everythign set to default. (random resources, normal research, normal speed)... how long do you think it would take a good player, familiar with the game to crush a newb... or better yet, an easy AI?

Easy AI? You can do it as fast as you can get 2 cap ships up. At least TEC. KoI and Marza. Build a dabble of light corvettes to mitigate and increase dmg. You win.

Well, the comments about "halo kiddies" aren't necessarily from 'dogmatic fanboi's'. They tend to be directed at people that insist the game is somehow broken or someone has been cheated out of a 'proper' RTS game because the core game design focuses around a slower pace and longer length than tradtional RTS. I'm all for having dozens of game options. Put in all kinds of speeds if you ask me. I like having 10 difficulty levels too while we're at it. I just think some find it obnoxious that people act like its supposed to be a different way when it has its own pace and style.

I mean, I'm not going to go on the forums for a Mario game and say things like "this game is weird... fire flowers and yoshis are ok but it needs more sticky grenades and warthogs to drive. Devs plz fix this game is borked!"

Shouldn't this be the end of the argument? The devs have spoken!

IC is looking into patching slower/faster options (slider or button) to please the newcomers not used to this style of game. That "wishlist" is being considered...be happy! Patch 1.02 already addresses a couple of "balancing" issues a few players didn't like. My only wish is being able to selectively choose which "fixes" I actually have to allow in the update. I like the game as it is, so the changes are something I'm either going to have to accept or mod/edit out. Plain and simple!

It's also easy to agree to disagree with the opionions of others. No sense in starting a war for a game that hasn't been out a week yet. Take your grievances to the forums politely and/or to the playing field I always say!

Oh boo hoo. You have a chip on your shoulder about normal RTS gamers and you want to show it off by trying to deny them their chance to have fun. The reality is, including a faster option wouldn't effect the "Normal" and "Slow" players at all, it'd just divert some of the "Fast" players to "Very Fast". Your attitude is completely uncalled for and completely illogical. If IC wants success (and expansions and sequels) they should keep all gamers in mind, and if they can cater to more people (customers) without changing the game for everyone else, BY ALL MEANS DO IT!

People have different opinions. Live with it. If the game was 4x (see what I did there) faster than it currently is, and people were begging for a slower version, i'd endorse them even though I wouldn't play the new mode. People deserve to have fun, not have some psycho niche-gamer forumite go all supremacist on them.




Thank god the developers have more brains than some of these dogmatic sycophants.

Actually that's more misleading on behalf of the 'RTS' title. Strategy means large-scale, and I really have never seen an RTS that actually involves any sort of strategy whatsoever. It's just 'build factory, spam tanks, win'.

To me the problem is that, let's say there's a 'DUR DUR' option for uber-fast speed. This gets around, sales skyrocket, and now the game is clogged with these players, to the point where the people of whom the game was intended for are pretty much drowned out by the balance demands of the 'DUR DUR' option crowd.

Yes, options are great, but you have to consider what changing the game too much, even gradually, in a certain direction would do.

1) "Their chance to have fun"? Do you have ANY idea how many boring, retarded, generic RTS games are out there? Haven't the console gamers been getting their gloriously desired dumbed-down games, one after the other, for over 5 years now?

2) No, the problem comes from community saturation. Tribes 2 was a phenomenal game that had a slow pace to allow room for real honest-to-god in-depth strategy. And it did. It was the best MPFPS game I've ever played. Then what would eventually become the "halo kiddies" hated the strategy and just wanted to blow up people and filled the game with "WAR 2003" and "MELTDOWN" games, and after a few months, it was IMPOSSIBLE to find a stock game of Tribes 2.

3) This is my favorite - you seem to claim that money-grubbing and selling out is the only way developers can make any dough. That appealing to the mass-market of idiots is the only way to 'ensure' their success. Do you realize how many developers have created a single unique, original title, and then gone on to produce heaps of mainstreamed crap because they chased the almighty dollar?

Thanks for just proving my point about halokiddie behaviour and attitude.

My point exactly. Once they go down that road, it's easy to forget the original audience.

Sins will go on if they add one more slow speed, or one more fast speed.

Jumping to the conclusion that adding such an item would kill the game is a slippery slope at best, and wacked fear at worst.

Name calling, insulting, mocking and deriding helps no one - it merely drives people apart. If this community would focus more on the good, than the bad - it can work through anything. Who cares if they add, as you call it, "Dur Dur" speed - make friends via the forum with people who prefer normal speed, and set up a weekly game.

It won't be the end of the world if the Developers continue to develop their own game.

1. speed is relative.(its a relative of velocity)
2. the dev's have a target group of players in mind, this target differs from the "generic" RTS game target audicance.
3.it also differs from the "4x" audicance as well.
4. Sins will not become a "Starcraft" or a "MoO", because market reserch says that neither of those appeals to their target audicance.
5.The Dev's have stated they are producing both a "slower" and "faster" option.
6. This Thread has out lived its usefulness, Like Pirates once i click "Continue Game."

Thank you, and Goodnight.

5. is a little true. They are considering adding a slower and faster option.

However I would have to agree with the "no" crowd as it does go against the very nature of the game. Not only that I don't think you can really reference any other game because traditional RTS games are much smaller in scale, the largest only encompassing the planet Earth, which is miniature compared to a solar system and even smaller when compared to more than one. On the other hand you have traditional 4x games are TBS games which allow you infinite time to plan a strategy. So what may work in either the traditional 4x or RTS realms may not work at all in Sins. This is really the first RT game that is this big in scale. Really I think it all comes down to what Stardock wants because they are the drunken captains on this space ship to.... um.... wherever we are going.

Not true. They have only stated they are -considering- this.



Oh one more thing: I like how you say I should live with people having different opinions although you say my opinions are completely uncalled for and illogical and calling me a psycho supremacist niche-gamer forumite. You're a hoot, that's what you are. (Boston Legal reference)

And I tested this so called "too slow for me" theory with a friend tonight.
We had 3 players: Me, my friend and a hard AI, medium sized map, ALL settings on default meaning that the speed was normal.

Total game length? 1h 15mins.

The key is to have a clear strategy in your mind and executing it.
1. Have the tech you need clearly in mind before the game.
2. Don't waste time on trying to capture every damn asteroid and planet.
3. Make several smaller fleets and upgrade them. Don't bother with advanced ships in the beginning.
4. Make use of your ships asap and go straight for the enemy homeplanet.

Those are just one of the few suggestions, but the point is that the better player you become the shorter the games will be.

There is no need for faster game speeds.

You do the developers a huge injustice by declaring that they will immediately abandon their values and cater to the "halo kiddie" market given the first opportunity. They have already stated that they will not do so. Even IF the game was flooded by "durr durr moders", you could just set your filters and play with the smaller number of people that enjoy what you do. Why should the game not be accessible to more people if making it more accessible would not change the original game at all? All of the benefit, none of the detriment. In my experience, situations like that should be taken advantage of. Your argument is completely flawed.


PS: Your insults are contradictory and illogical. Bunching "halo kiddies" and "RTS adrenaline junkies" (why do you hate Koreans? Racist.) into one generalized category is just ignorant and stupid.

PPS: In case I haven't gotten the point across already, you are a mindless dogmatic idealist who thinks that your way is the only way. Mindsets like yours result in fascism. Kindly stop smearing your opinions (which strangely resemble feces, i'll have to look into that one) all over the internets. Did I mention that you are the cancer that are killing the aforementioned internetweb?