What's the point of economy in this game ?

[Bozz 💀]

I love the early game a lot, when you actually have to hunt for ressources to build capital ships and actually take sectors to get more income etc...

After a few hours once you get into mid game the ressources have almost no value or existence, you leterally swim in metal, cristal and money and never will you use all of it, it just sits there and accumulates...
It gets even worser in late game...

I really wonder what's the point of ressources beyond early game... and why it is so poorly balanced ?

[This PC]

thread too long, didn't read
I feel like the economy mattering less in the midgame kinda evens out everything for everyone, game becomes mostly about fleet composition, protecting your caps, where you move your fleet, and what you do with it when you're in battle. Like yes, I agree the economy doesn't matter in late game, but I disagree it's a bad thing. I love that part of the game myself~

[Hadgart]

Publicado originalmente por Bozz 💀:

I love the early game a lot, when you actually have to hunt for ressources to build capital ships and actually take sectors to get more income etc...

After a few hours once you get into mid game the ressources have almost no value or existence, you leterally swim in metal, cristal and money and never will you use all of it, it just sits there and accumulates...
It gets even worser in late game...

I really wonder what's the point of ressources beyond early game... and why it is so poorly balanced ?

Use a mod, 2k max units is really bad, i play 20k units limit mod.

[BoogieMan]

On anything more than 40 systems, this is how it goes for us too, and we don't play any lower than hard AI, if its 2v2 or 2v2v2v2 or FFA, eventually you're swimming in resources. I don't know what could be done, seems weird but it doesn't bother me.

[kissblade]

Hi Bozz. One thing to consider is not all ships are built equal and you can have a 2K supply fleet be completely plowed by another 2K supply fleet. Unfortunately, the AI has no way of demonstrating this but generally excessive resources in high level MP is used for "retrofitting" your fleet by scuttling obseleted/countered ships and replacing them with higher quality (often capitals) once you notice you have high excess resources. In the extreme late game, excess resources are donated to losing teammates but at that point in the game, credits/metal/crystals are not valuable, what is actually most value as a "scaling" resource is experience and generally at that point, whoever has more experienced/equipped capitals will win over any other fleet.

[Panzerfaust]

try pvp competitive playing agaisnt ai is.... this game is more multyplayer than singleplayer anyway. Game needs more stuff, balance the stuff and introduce mmr rankings to show of. then maybe 2/3 k playerbase

[Gorwe]

Publicado originalmente por Panzerfaust:

try pvp competitive playing agaisnt ai is.... this game is more multyplayer than singleplayer anyway. Game needs more stuff, balance the stuff and introduce mmr rankings to show of. then maybe 2/3 k playerbase

No. Absolutely no MMR. That just flips the crazy switch. And you never go back. MMR(and gotta win!) mentality just attracts the worst of people.

[Gorwe]

With that said, I am also bothered by the "swimming in resources" syndrome. You just can't spend them as fast as they accumulate. The game is otherwise very fun(even though several systems, Advent included, need to get finished), but something about mid-late economy is way off.

[Vohvelieläin]

If non-combat structures had less durability than battleships, we might actually see continuous small scale raids that would prevent people from ever getting to the point of excess resources. It would also deal with this deathball issue by forcing people to spread out their fleet.

I have been really confused by this durability 600 on extractors and research stations. Anything between 0 and 100 would be reasonable, but 600 is just silly. Hull points should probably be reduced as well.

[DaRagingLunatic]

Publicado originalmente por HappyCamperBubbleBelow:

Everyone is extremely risk adverse, often not willing to fight unless they know they can win because the games current state is often one and done in terms of major battle.

The game as it is... once you lose a major battle and your fleet, the game on medium and smaller maps are over, the player even with unlimited resources cannot rebuild fast enough to actually fight back before homeworld is lost.

In theory defences/starbases/phase disruptors should stop this...
Outside of TEC Enclave it just doesnt.

You made defences pointless...
Players are not punished for skipping systems and defences, just take out any phase disruptor and jump to next system. Its so trivial to take out a phase disruptor and they cost so many logistics that you can't really afford to build more then 1.


So people outside of early game expansion avoid battle until they know they can win most of the time.

What I don't understand is how SINS1 noticed these issues and built in counter measures.

Jumping consumed antimatter
Starbases caused damage when enemy fleets jumped out of gravity well.

Just bringing these two things back, even if just in systems with a Starbase would force people to fight their way to the enemies homeworld rather then just rush after winning a major battle.

Publicado originalmente por BATTLEMODE:

Storage is a form of waste. If you've got excess resources, you should be spending them on winning

Yeah the light defences and heavy defenses are bad just due to lack of range because missile ships. Even non moving starbases really lack the range. Hangers are the only defence worth getting because of that range issue. I have had a minor faction invade and take over a planet i wanted with my early fleet and their 6 defenses pushed me out.

There really needs to be another defensive option to help with the range issues. Like a research that can be done to make the defense platforms move in closer to get into range.

[Sarnath]

this has got to be a troll thread

[Xan84]

Publicado originalmente por Sarnath:

this has got to be a troll thread

Nah, I play only vs AI, on medium or hard and by mid to end game, I have so many resources its like I have an infinite ammount of them.
Now I play on big maps and perhaps things change on harder difficulties or vs humans but where I play it, I am ending up in the same place. I put 1 or 2 starbases (depending on who I am playing) on all planets and all defenses since I have so many resources.

[Pisku]

After few hours is not "mid game". If you are floating, this means against AIs you have won already.

By then you should have lvl10 titan and high lvl caps. After that its just mop up cleaning well after well

[DaRagingLunatic]

Publicado originalmente por limith:

There's too many game design flaws in this game to even bother trying to address game balance imho as someone who has done game balance mods for other games. I would just play this as a casual single player PvE once the campaign comes out. See my review if you want more details.

There's no point to too many things in the game, with what has no point changing from patch to patch.

Took me a while to scroll through the reviews to find it but i did: 1 person found this review helpful

Not Recommended
0.0 hrs last two weeks / 301.7 hrs on record
Posted: 21 Sep @ 6:49pm
Updated: 16 Oct @ 10:33pm

Sins 1 was a pioneer in the 4X and RTS genre when it came out. Sins 2 while faithful has not kept up with other 4X games which offer far more true strategic depth. To label Sins 2 as a 4X game based on modern standards is inaccurate.

This game is still quite fun in singleplayer or casual combat, and I look forward to the campaign. But it doesn't really feel like a strategy game to me once you really understand how the combat mechanics work together. Yes there are some tactical things that you can do, and yes you can cheese the AI, but by and large, it's about who has more of the "optimal" unit (which changes from patch to patch).

The game is more aptly described as a real time tactics game (generally known as an RTS except the S is a misnomer if you understand the difference between tactics and strategy). It's not really a 4X like Endless Space or Stellaris. Nor does it have the level of tactics of say Warno or Age of Empires. Nor does it do a good job of bringing you space spectacle per *time* invested (20 minutes setting up a game, one battle, and cleanup after). It's not strategically deep as games like Fire Emblem or Hearts of Iron. So if you are looking for a game of any of those genres, then this is not the game for you. If you are looking for a RTS game though or just a casual game to beat the AI, or mods, then this is the game for you.

The game also has fundamental game design flaws which make balancing impossible. I feel the crux of the issue is that all damage is fundamentally the same. Therefore despite tweaking with numbers, there will always be a "superior spammed" unit that has the highest "relative DPS per resource". I've played the game a long time over three patches and have seen the meta shift from "spam tempests" to "spam capitals" to (evidently according to the forums since I quit playing) "spam missile" yet again.

Other games have weapon triangles, which while maligned by the Strategy/Tactics community, I've come to appreciate as fulfilling a crucial game design role of enabling actual strategic thinking. Having differentiated damage types allows for proper counters in games. Imagine Pokemon, but every move and every Pokemon type is Normal, the supermajority of all moves would be pointless. That's what Sins 2 combat design fundamentally boils down to.

True differentiated damage is something devs have said they do not wish to implement because they feel users were confused by different bonuses per unit (think Advanced Wars where one unit does bonus damage against another type of unit) in the previous game. Of course it is their prerogative to do so. But by doing so, the end result is that more than half of in game roster units end up failing to have a true "role" in order to accomplish "military objectives".

The saddest part is: League of Legends has more strategic depth than this game with multiple damage types (HP based, AP, AD, True, Crit, AS, Burn) and defense types (Armor, MR, HP, Shield, Movement). League does not market itself as a strategy game.

[DaRagingLunatic]

301 hours and still not recommended? I don't get players like you lol

[BoogieMan]

Publicado originalmente por DaRagingLunatic:

301 hours and still not recommended? I don't get players like you lol

To be fair, not everyone has the same level of tolerance for issues and there is also the desire to force yourself to try and get your money's worth.