hey everybody is sots 2 good yet?
I was very disappointed when after playing the original (and NEVER being able to win a single game....) to hear that this one wasn't great. Have the updates made this game playable yet?
Please forgive me asking that I'm sure its been asked plenty of times but I decided to pick this up during the Steam summer sale which is why I'm asking you now
UI is still shi... less than perfect.
If you don't mind that clicking on anything makes you wait 10 or 20 seconds, or that having couple stations means annoying chore to micro them, it can be quite fun.
Short answer:SOTS 2 seem to have finally reached pre-BETA stage(it was released as some sort of pre-Alpha mess).
Long answer: What does this mean? It means that nearly all features planned for release are currently in the game - diplomacy, politics, all techs, nearly all menaces, nearly all sections and ships.
It still crashes due to missing assets very often. The in-game encyclopaedia is empty, and what little entries there are are wrong or useless.
Optimization is lacking - the game loads very slowly, with things getting progressively slow as a game progresses, including screens that shouldn't be affected by how crowded the strategy map is.
As for how fun the game under all this mess is? YMMV. Some parts are brilliant, some are frustrating. Some people already love it, despite the crashes and relative lack of balance.
Please report those here or on the developers forum, by posting the game log files, any savegames near the offending CTD.... and state any instructions on how the CTD occurred. Also if the bug is reproducible.
Originally Posted by Crepuscularity
Unless the devs get to hear about these then there is little chance they will be fixed.
Hi, Just bought the Sword of the stars I & II from the steam sale. Can someone please tell when the game will look as though it is fit for release.
A lot of things are good but it is still unplayable in my book. Turn times are way too long. Almost every patch is still breaking saved games. Computer still bad at defending itself. Getting better, but not good yet. In order for it to be a game, it has to be challenging in that respect.
I have to admit that i'm one of those lucky who doesn't have any real problem with the turn and screen transition times... :S (my screen transitions take 1-2s; turn times less than 10s, which is acceptable for me - but as i said i'm lucky here)
Originally Posted by hasoos
About the saves i have to disagree i had a saved game which i played over 4 or 5 patches before this one (started a new game with this for the better AI to work from the beggining)
You are not the only one S0ny, my game plays pretty much the same way, though it's rare to see 2 second transistions, instant to 1 second seem to be the norm for me and rarely over 10s for turns as well. Civ 5 (and others I could name) take much much much longer (though even those don't bother me like some people. )
Originally Posted by S0ny B1ack
I habitually restart with each new patch, however having said that there have been a few ummm....interesting games that I've extended across a few patches because I wasn't ready to stop just yet, without any issues as well.
That some have short turn times proves 4 things, they play on 5m combat, instead of 8/12) they do not play Hiver, they do not play with 6+ enemies, and they are not allied with any of these 6+ guys either. So basically, you are not playing this game at all. Because as a 4x game, the only POINT of it is diplomacy/MAX races and a large map. If these factors come together the game falls apart so epic that even calling it a game is a joke. Because you are waiting longer for the "combat simulation" to simulate nothing than you actually play the game (and that means, combat simulation you have no active part in)
Because lets be clear, the literal turn time is snappy fast, unless a combat simulation happens (if you play Hiver+allies+8 AI you will quickly learn why some people HATE this current auto-resolve method).
Because yeah, the "turns" pass very fast, only that there are 12 combat simulations in queue because the AI attacks some colonies of some AI's I have cease-fire or alliance with and thus a gate around and thus I have to suffer through 5+ minutes of boring simulations of nothing.
So please, never say you have fast turn times and look at people as if they are lying or bashing the game. Because when I (and many others) say turn time, they mean the time from pressing END to the moment we can actually give orders again. And if you have allies in Sots2 and you have scouts/gates around your allies planets you will learn the very hard way what TURN TIMES ARE TOO LONG really means.
10 seconds? How about 50+ seconds per battle of 8m combat, and I had (record) 36 combats queued once when it was very late game and a 2v1 resulted (me + ally vs enemy AI) with over 130 colonies. The turn never actually ended (thankfully a patch broke this save so I have never again to think of this..)
Now, fair enough I am probably expecting a bit more than the average person of a 4x game (I hate playing with 2 or 3 AI) because it too quickly dead-locks you in a situation you can not win if you are unlucky. This is why to me 12m and 8AI is the only way to really play this game. And currently, at this "level" of gameplay, the game is broken. Sure lots of bugs/gui things were fixed, the elemental problem of this game (combat simulation being what it is) is however not fixed, and it is constantly being mentioned to not play with 8 players, which is like saying "this is the gas pedal, don't use it more than 5%" when you have a car.
Last edited by eRe4s3r; 17-07-2012 at 09:13.
Yes. The only situation where I found the game to be enjoyable for me is 4 players, small maps, no Hivers, no alliance. I honestly wonder how people can enjoy the latency, long turn times in bigger games.
ok so i guess in another 4-5 months this will be ready for release.
If they don't add a quick resolve that abstracts combat there will never be a time where you could play 8 players on large maps and not go insane due to the added wait (it doesn't even matter if that is in foreground or background). If you think about it, most people here saying turn times are 10 seconds or less likely are extremely lucky in that the AI doesn't fight between themselves (and they play with very few players). If you have 8 players all at war with each other (and you) you would probably have turn times above 5 minutes. I know that I can easily get to 1minute turn times on large 8 player maps and I am talking turn 50, not turn 500. This probably explains why I still call this game "unplayable". Because that is what I want to play the game on. Not 3 or 4 players and small maps.
To be honest, this situation I described, should be what the games features are designed around. Sadly they aren't. And nothing is more proof for that than the combat simulation.
I really do not wish to bash the game needlessly but the reality is, that the game is badly designed for the scope it aims to provide.
Ps.: And yes, the latest patch really did not help this situation at all, even normal turn times have become slower now, better AI, slower turns. It makes sense but does not help the situation at all.
Actually there are only 6 races. I'll admit I play with 6 races. So what, why is that not a "Full" game. lol Because it can go to 8? What kind of logic is that? I play Hiver a lot, and face Hiver in almost every game I'm not playing Hiver (and sometimes when I do!). So again not having issues with Hivers. Yep I play the default combat time of 5 minutes, it is after all how the game was designed. 8-12 minutes is a choice, not a requirement. Just because I don't play the game with more then 6 factions, at 8-12minutes combat times and on HUGE Maps doesn't mean I or others don't "basically not playing the game at all" lol
As for combat turns and the time it takes to "play" those turns out...your kidding right? The whole point of SotS (any version) for me is the combat turns. I don't recall ever using the "do it for me" option. If I want a combat to go really fast, I just use Ctrl-Pageup and poof done in no time. Saying that those who play the game as intended aren't really playing the game is kind of like saying....breathing isn't real unless you can breath underwater and in vacuum without assistance and to use pressurized air and suits is not really breathing. lol
Everyone plays how they play and some have different idea's of what that means to be honest, but that doesn't mean it's the only way or the right way or anything silly like that. Some will like it, some will not. You can't please everyone. If this isn't your cup of soup, there are other soups out there go sample and be happy.
Battles, AI vs AI, without any input or output from player. How are they decided?
Originally Posted by SFCShadow
Fought using the same algorithms used if you do auto-battle in a compressed format. It used to be you could watch those battles if you wished in real time, or in the usual auto-battle format (viewed). But people complained so they removed it from view, and restricted it to that algorithm without seeing it. Basically they fight it out, just like you would if it were multi-player only faster. (since players would fight it out in real time)
Shadow I am talking about the sadly regular occurring thing where a Hiver Gate on a ALLY world when you also have a NAP or ALLY with the "enemy" forces you to commit to the simulation "proper", and these takes 40~ seconds on 12m combat. Per combat. If I play them out that'd mean sitting there staring at my GATE for X minutes with no danger to my gate at all. And often at 5m or 8m these combats do not resolve in 1 round so they are recurring..... which is particular fun.
I am not talking about combat out of sight, or combat involving my fleets (obviously that I play out) I am talking about combat simulations where I can't do anything but have to simulate them because I am there with a gate. Which is really what Hivers are all about, gates everywhere. And this happens a lot if you play Hiver...
And the comparison to MP doesn't count imo. I play SP exactly to avoid that. Sadly it doesn't avoid it. Yes, it is "faster" than MP but to me it is too slow for a SP campaign.
Also, i never claimed that any way to play is the best though I probably worded that badly. I meant it is extremely annoying if people say "there is no problem" which is what usually happens when people mention that the turn times su.... are slow... If you play the game by maxing out map size and races the turn times become excessively slow and transition time in GUI also increases (which I don't understand to be honest, given that GUI should not be dependent on anything that goes on with the game).
The game simply needs a quick resolve, a proper <1s resolve to be playable at large scales. And I never disputed that it is playable and "fun" in smaller scale.
But they still adds to turn time.
Originally Posted by SFCShadow
And after watching few battles, I'm not very impressed with battle AI.
no crashing for me since I came back to playing SOTS2. The pausing between menus is very small for myself.. only when clicking on a particular planet that has like a few fleets with orders on it... or maybe its just the ones with colonizers working.. those sometimes pause a bit.. and I get some fleets showing 176 turns or 228 turns etc to do a mission.. but in reality its only taking them the small time it first reflected when ordering the mission. anyways.. thats about all the issue i had.. and that sounds like a UI thing.