PDA

View Full Version : Game balance issues


Don Maddox
23 Feb 08, 00:55
Hmmm, after playing several large games and taking some time to contemplate Sins of a Solar Empire, I'm reluctantly forced to conclude this game has some fairly serious balance issues. I should point out that I'm one of those rare gamers that doesn't generally get too wound up about unit balance. The way I see it, all games have some sort of balance issue--the gamer just needs to understand that and learn to adjust. Unfortunately, Sins seems to have deeper problems.


For starters, the capital ships are scarcely worth all the effort and resources that goes into building them. Although they look impressive on paper, the reality is that they simply aren't much of an improvement over much smaller vessels. In fact, in terms of sheer "bang for the buck," capital ships are generally not worth the money that goes into them. The smaller ships can be built more quickly, more cheaply, and almost always achieve better results over the long run. This should not be. Capital ships should be powerful, easily capable of dealing with small fleets of lesser ships, and worth the large investment. Sins' capital ships feel expensive and bloated, yet strangely ineffective.
Phasing needs a major overhaul. As the game currently stands, it's essentially impossible to create any type of meaningful defense strategy. Enemies simply jump right into your base of operations and fly right through your defenses because there is no way to destroy even medium-sized ships quickly enough to repel an attack. So opponents fly in, lay waste to your planet, and then move on to your next base. Rinse, repeat.
Siege frigates are not well implemented in their current form. Even the largest and most heavily armed capital ships cannot deal with them quickly enough to keep an assult force of siege frigates from destroying your planets one by one. Even when the firepower of three or four capital ships is massed on a single siege frigate, it soaks up the firepower for quite a while. In short, Sins' offensive weaponry is wholly inadequate to the task of defending against these types of run and gun tactics. That may be by design, but it does not result in fun gameplay.
Cannot shape the battlefield. One of the most serious problems with the game's current design is that commanders are almost powerless to effectively shape the battlefield. As the game advances, battles tend to get progressively more chaotic and soon there is very little tactics involved at all. In just ends up being a massive Stalingrad-like war of attrition. Instead of rewarding smart planning and sound tactics, Sins' battles start to feel like the early days of the RTS genre, when the player simply selected "everything" and hurled it at the enemy.
Another problem I see is the inability to actually force a fight. The game rewards terrorist hit and run tactics far more than it does intelligent planning. These "drive by shooting" tactics are fun for the first few hours, but once you realize there really isn't any way to stop it and no effective defense, the shine starts to wear off. The enemy jumps in with a huge fleet and you move your own huge fleet to meet it. Although there's a lot of flak and pretty special effects flying around, none of it is effective enough to really do significant damage because the first fleet is simply there to blow the planet to shreds and then jump back out. Yes, there are phase inhibitors, but they are tech 4. Tech 4!
Defensive structures are very nearly worthless. They are incapable of stopping even a small attack. Although they may destroy a few frigates, they are worthless for halting siege frigates engaged in planetary bombardment.
Fighters and bombers serve little or no purpose. Unlike Homeworld 2, where the player needed to fight the "small" battles (fighter vs. fighter) as well as "large" battles (ship vs. ship), the fighters in Sins are little more than a nuisance to frigates, and wholly ineffective against capital ships. In fact, they don't seem to serve much purpose at all.
Sins is a very interesting game, but in its current form I feel it has medium-severe balance issues that virtually ensure every match played on a big map will end up resembling WWI trench warfare.

Judging from the huge amount of feedback from players on the official forums, I'm wondering if reviewers didn't jump the gun just a tiny bit in praising Sins of the Solar Empire so highly. Right now I'm trying to decide whether these problems are simply balance issues that can be easily corrected with some intelligent tweaks, or whether the issues run deeper and are rooted in the game design.

Scott Tortorice
23 Feb 08, 15:22
Don't worry, Ironclad has heard all these points before and is already planning a minor patch (that should be available next week) and a major patch sometime next month. Sins is suffering from the usual growing pains that a game of this complexity needs to suffer through in the beginning. But I am fully confident that most, if not all, of these issues will be corrected in the near future. Heck, World in Conflict is still releasing patches for balancing issues and that game has been out for many months and is nowhere near as complex as Sins.

Hang in there, Sins is only going to get better.

Scott Tortorice
23 Feb 08, 16:37
Hey Don,

You might want to give this mod a try until the patch comes out:

Sins Enhancement Mod v1.52 (http://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/?forumid=443&aid=177349)

I haven't tried it, but the mod sounds like it is on the right track.

Don Maddox
23 Feb 08, 17:05
Don't get me wrong, I think Sins is an innovative game with a lot of potential for future growth. But I am a tiny bit concerned that it may be fairly difficult to correct some of these problems. Let me explain.

Sins of a Solar Empire, unlike the Homeworld series, is a strategic game that takes place over a large area and involves separate battles and separate fleets. In Homeworld the player controlled a single fleet in real-time, so the player never felt overwhelmed or pressed for time. Galactic Civilizations, while also a strategic game, was turn-based so there were no management issues. But Sins wants to be an empire builder that runs in real-time, something no other game that I can think of has successfully managed. Even Total War and Civilization didn't attempt this.

And I believe it is here where Sins problems may be rooted--I'm not sure yet. Would it be easy enough to correct the lack of offensive firepower and turn the capital ships into what they really ought to be? Sure it would. But that would mean battles would play out far more quickly and be very lethal compared to the grinding trench warfare we have now. My feeling is that the designers intentionally made all the ships--even the small ones--difficult to destroy in order to maintain the game's stately pace and give the player an opportunity to manage the whole empire.

This very well could be Sins' Achilles heel. If the combat engine and units are tuned to make battles play out the way most gamers intuitively feel they should, it may have the unfortunate result of turning campaigns on larger maps into frenzied click-fests where the player is at a huge disadvantage against a relentless AI opponent capable of simultaneously issuing orders to hundreds of units scattered across many different systems. Regardless of how good the interface is, the player has only one set of eyes and one mouse.

That's my point. The developers may feel they need to maintain the "gutless" offensive feel of the ships or else the player won't have a fair chance to react quickly enough and manage multiple fleets.

Don Maddox
23 Feb 08, 17:09
Hey Don,

You might want to give this mod a try until the patch comes out:

Sins Enhancement Mod v1.52 (http://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/?forumid=443&aid=177349)

I haven't tried it, but the mod sounds like it is on the right track.

That does sound like someone out there is on the same wavelength I am. I will say this: If they get these balance issues worked out without wrecking the game, Sins is going to be a classic for some time to come.

Scott Tortorice
23 Feb 08, 17:21
And I believe it is here where Sins problems may be rooted--I'm not sure yet. Would it be easy enough to correct the lack of offensive firepower and turn the capital ships into what they really ought to be? Sure it would. But that would mean battles would play out far more quickly and be very lethal compared to the grinding trench warfare we have now. My feeling is that the designers intentionally made all the ships--even the small ones--difficult to destroy in order to maintain the game's stately pace and give the player an opportunity to manage the whole empire.

This very well could be Sins' Achilles heel. If the combat engine and units are tuned to make battles play out the way most gamers intuitively feel they should, it may have the unfortunate result of turning campaigns on larger maps into frenzied click-fests where the player is at a huge disadvantage against a relentless AI opponent capable of simultaneously issuing orders to hundreds of units scattered across many different systems. Regardless of how good the interface is, the player has only one set of eyes and one mouse.

That's my point. The developers may feel they need to maintain the "gutless" offensive feel of the ships or else the player won't have a fair chance to react quickly enough and manage multiple fleets.

That's an interesting point. Personally, I don't get that impression; I think we are just dealing with an initially conservative balance to the units. However, you could have hit upon the underlying rationale for this initial conservative balance.

If that does turn out to be true, I think the best way to handle the issue is not by nerfing the units but by slowing the pace of the game. I play Sins at the slowest setting (which I greatly prefer to the normal setting), but I think Sins could even be slowed down some more. If IC is worried about stronger vessels making the game a clickfest, then they might have to slow the pace down some with a super-slow setting which will cause fleets to travel slower, giving the player more time to react (but keeping this setting optional, of course).

tevans
24 Feb 08, 21:36
The one problem that I have with Sins is that for a space type game it just doesn't have an epic feel to it. It's just difficult for me to believe that with multiple star systems and planets only three factions and pirates exist. I realize this is supposed to be an rts 4x space type game but it feels like it's missing something. More factions and possibly minor races would go a long way to fill the gap.

Don Maddox
24 Feb 08, 22:33
I agree with that--at least to a degree.

The production values of the opening video is mediocre and the voice acting fails to immerse the player or leave any lasting impression. Many other strategy games do a much better job in this respect, and it really helps these games feel more believable and more enjoyable.

The cut scenes and back story for Homeworld 2 were outstanding and helped bring that fictional environment to life. Sins does not compare favorably here, as it completely lacks any sort of meaningful story and all the factions feel like generic "space race A." There are no interesting visitors that show up, no mysterious locations defended by automated fleets, no drifting derelicts loaded with the promise of powerful relics and danger, no truly astonishing technological wonders to discover. A hint of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri might have went a long way here.

Sins gives the player a wide universe to explore, that's true. But instead of space being a place of wonder, mystery, and adventure, it turns out to be fairly mundane and antiseptic place. Apparently, the only thing of interest that ever happens in this universe is war.