That doesn't affect MP games though.
I really agree there seems to be a lack of end-game abilities that really speed up the annihilation process. While I love a long-lasting game with a good amount of back and forth fighting, I really don't like having to continue playing a game I've already won against a stubborn opponent. This only drags out the game for several more hours where as in other games it would've been "GG" a long time ago.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people who've already lost should just be forced to surrender, it's great when they still try to put up a fight and fiercely defend their remaining planets. I am saying however that perhaps there should be a slightly larger slippery slope effect to speed up the process of a player who's already lost to get killed.


I don't find the superweapons particularly that powerful and game turning either.
The vasari superweapon only really affects defensive platforms and does no significant damage. The TEC superweapon is slightly more impressive as it decolonises a planet but this can be quickly recolonised and rebuilt, making the effects minimal. The Advent culture cannon is interesting as well but really does very little to speed up the annihilation process imho.

Saving the game and continueing later is hardly an option for multiplayer games.
In addition, I'm sure myself and others really prefer finishing a game they've started rather than saving it and continueing it another day.

Also keep in mind this post is not directed at the game taking too long itself or asking for a faster game speed. This post is however more aimed at achieving a faster way of winning a game you've already won anyway.

I've played two 4 hour multiplayer games and finished one. Totally awesome when you have the time to do it.

I don't think that they (superweapons) should be absolute game winners, but I do wish they forced the opponent's hand a bit more. Right now the TEC one is pretty good, doing nothing pretty much guarantees the enemy an easy planet kill, but the Vasari one seems underpowered (30 secs or whatever of no base defenses is nothing, takes so long to kill things for Vasari). Haven't managed to get an Advent game to superweapon levels yet so dunno there.

I think the Advent superweapon is the worst out of the three...not saying it utterly sucks...it's just the worst..

All together terrible suggestions.
The last thing Sins needs is all destroying super weapons. Other RTS games have that those in the past, and they were game breaking indeed.
It shouldn't be about rushing to some tech for domination. It should instead be about playing smart, and making the right choices as well as being a good planner.

"Add a domination victory condition. If you and your allies control more than say 70% of the planets then a countdown is initiated. If the opponents fail to reduce you below 70% control before that countdown reaches 0 then it's game over."

YES! that would be outstanding, kinda like COH VP, it gives the computer an objective too, i still cant get past normal AI with a large map because the AI eventually gangs up on me and i'm fighting a defensive war the entire time. Maybe i just suck, but if i could rely on one of my planets abilities to hold up against at least a mini attack force, it would be "easier" to make objective based movements and attacks.

how about a option when u make the game to set if when people leave their empire disappears or you can set a AI to take over. people leaving and not surrendering is one of the most annoying thins in game cause then you have to go kill the colony's of people that are not even their total waste of time.

In multi-player there needs to be an unrecoverable point assessed so the loser cant just take 3 ships and hop around the galaxy forever.

It a very anti-climactic ending that never ends.

Thats what the vasari have been doing for millenia .

On subject, yes, some of the superweapons are anti-climactic, but it does stop people turtling up and killing you without ever building a fleet.

The domination idea is good. Make it an adjustable game option, so you can host a game called "2v2 DOM 80%!!!"

You don't lose any of Sins normal gameplay but you do encourage expansion and combat to nab as much land, or take away your opponents, as possible. Also making it an adjustable value lets people change the % depending on the map size. 70% is too much if your dealing with some 5-star super small map where 80% might be better.

Wouldn't require any major balancing issues AFAIK because I don't think any of the races get any special tech that the others don't letting them expand faster.

The Good/Bad about Sins is that the developers have tried to create an incredibly balanced game that requires deep strategy and planning. But in multiplayer this can make games drag out to incredible lengths.

Yes, an alternative to annihilation gamemode would definately be a welcome addition.
What about a gamemode in which teams fight for certain critical planets? Control of those planets would tick down the opposing team's "tickets" or something simular and eventually cause you to win the game when holding it long enough.

Obviously these planets would be frontline planets with multiple phase lanes leading to them, making them a tough nut to defend. It'd certainly add another strategical element to the game. Should you go for the key-planets or use a different strategy and try to cripple their homeworlds, etc etc.

A RON domination gamemode would definately work too.
Basically a struggle for the majority of the system, whoever can hold onto the most planets wins. This gamemode could only come into play after a certain point in the game and would definately prevent the losing team to drag out games much longer than needed.
(AND pressure them to play offensive if they want to stay in the game)