ICO, a comeback?

Nearly a dozen games?  Were you limp afterwards?

Nearly a dozen games?  Were you limp afterwards?

lol double post. i managed to mow my yard to

just trying to get the word out that the communty is no longer shrinking and is in fact growing (hopefully at an exponentail rate ;))

diplomacy sucks way more then entrenchment, im not coming back anway unless people go back to entrench

lol if you dont like the game dont play it. diplomacy is far better for multiplayer it adds so much to the game. not to mentioned the faster speeds

What do you dislike so much about Diplomacy?

I was under the impression you did not like diplomacy either, whip.  I seem to recall at least a couple of posts from you advocating going back to entrenchment.  I am very meh about diplomacy in general.  It absolutely screws anyone in the suicide slot unless they are surrounded by poorly skilled players.  Pacts are ok but advent are screwed in that too.  I find myself going for them only infrequently.  The faster speeds do not impress me but then I was never a big fan of opening the floodgates of resources because it takes some skill with managing fewer resources out and the large infrastructure penalties hurt if you are trying to rebuild.

 

[_]-Greyfox

Yes  there is a steady influx of new players.  This has been going on for a while.  It's kinda cool in that you can tell the ones that appreciate suggestions are new, and the ones that tell you to save your breath are smurfs (or just pricks).

Yeah, at times Whip has sounded like chicken little with the diplomacy sky is falling routine, but he vacillates back and forth at least. 

Diplomacy is so far superior to any other version in every way, that it's not even funny.  What is funny though is how this guy seems to say that Entrenchment sucks <less> and issue ultimatums to go back and play it at the same time !?!?

I think Diplomacy is OK but not amazing nor all that superior to Entrenchment.  I don't really have anything against Diplomacy, but early on I was concerned that it would split up the community.  And it did.  It correlates with a precipitous drop in online multiplayer player counts and activity.

I'm genuinely confused why people think Diplomacy is worse than Entrenchment for online play.  You can adjust the settings so it's just Entrenchment with envoys and pacts.  It's like adding a new colour of marshmellow to a cereal and complaining the old way was vastly superior.  Anyway, all new players probably have Trinity and will not be amused by idiots demanding they downgrade their game because they hate change, so good look with your Diplomacy boycott.  The rest of us genuinely appreciate the smurfs and trolls quitting the game.

I was talking to some noobies in the lobby and they were like, "...why would they not just upgrade the entire game with Diplomacy?  Why even leave an option to play Entrenchment?"

The same questions I asked when vanilla went to Entrenchment.  The point, however, is that saying Diplomacy is just "OK" is like saying sins in general is just "OK".  Diplomacy provided for the multiplayer community what no previous version had.  Speed, mitigating resource whoring, and allied technology benefits.  And the pirates are better if you use 'em.  For single players that say they don't care about speed because they like to be able to take a bong hit between missions that's fine, set it to slow and go get some cereal to eat out of the box while your at it.  For those that say they like Entrenchment better, they are fence-posting.  Maybe they don't want to spend or have the 10 bones to get it.

There is no controversy whatsoever that Diplomacy represents the best of breed.  To question or declare otherwise is foolish.

 

Were you responding to me?  I'm not advocating a boycott of Entrenchment; I don't have a problem with it.  I don't think it's worse than Entrenchment, just that it's not much better than Entrenchment.  I do think that Diplomacy may have made it more difficult for people to find games by splitting up the community, resulting in decreased player counts.

Slackah, it could be argued that Diplomacy is inferior to Entrenchment in terms of starting position bias.  That is to say, players' relative starting positions might have a greater impact on the outcome than in Entrenchment.  If someone starts out in a suicide spot, they could get gangbanged before they can receive any feed.  (So, the team without a player in a suicide spot now has a huge advantage.)  Also, if one team has a player in an eco slot and the other does not, the increased ease for that single eco player to be able to form pacts is another large advantage for the team.

I'm not saying that I think Diplomacy is inferior to Entrenchment.  Rather, I'm just pointing out two potential issues it raises based on how the game is played online (random maps and not custom maps).  It could also be argued that those two factors I mention balance one another--the team with a player in a suicide spot is liable to have someone in an eco spot.  Personally, I like Diplomacy.  I just don't think it's a major improvement over Entrenchment for online multiplayer.

I am of the same opinion as whip.  Diplomacy isn't a terrible thing but it is not really an improvement on entrenchment for me.  It hurt the online community pretty badly.  To me that makes it not a good thing overall since I never play with an AI except when someone drops or leaves a game so diplomacy definitely is NOT the best.  If there were no controversy, it would not even be discussed.  I do not feel it was worth the $10 but I bought it in hopes of continuing to play multiplayer and to support a game I have enjoyed for so long.  Obviously the multiplayer part didn't work out.

 

[_]-Greyfox

diplomacy screwed up the game real bad, i have lots of xp in entrench and

from the 25 games i played it seems carriers are buffed up way too much. all sb are virtually unstoppable, LF are useless,

and the faster start and speeds make it a action game, not a stragety game... its spam spam spam, no time for micro or strats. What they did is dumb down the game making it for the dumber. now its pretty much like a simcity arcade game.

not just an influx of new players but old players aswell:D

Same goes for the attackers, they can't get feed early either, and a competent "Entrencher" can perform the refugee flight, or turtle same as Entrenchment, but from my experience the increased speed allows a more contiguous flow in order to facilitate either. But you are right about the map placement, but this goes for any version, random map phucking can adversely determine the outcome.You, sir are way off base.  There is nothing like a clickfest spam-o-thon to sins no matter which version you play.Obviously?  So, if Diplomacy never came out, we wouldn't be having this discussion?  What about if Entrenchment never came out and it went straight to Diplomacy?  If one is sentimental or nostalgic about the "good ole days of Entrenchment", don't put down Diplomacy.The reasons you give for saying Diplomacy is not an improvement Greyfox are emotional.  I miss the camaraderie and fellowship of higher player counts, yes, but I'm not going to blame Diplomacy altogether.  For what it is, it is light years ahead of Entrenchment in it's scope and playability.  OK, maybe sound-waves ahead, but it is still the best sins version.  You can't just unfavorably compare it because of some flimsy parallel to advanced game flow or especially because of a random map placements.  Saying Diplomacy is flawed and that it's the death of Sins is like saying faster computers cost too much money so they are not for me, and everyone should just keep their old ones.   It's short sighted and irresponsible.

It isn't emotional in the slightest.  Diplomacy is very much a contributor to the fall of player counts.  The split in the lobbies cut in half the already small group that played online.  Before diplomacy there was generally 60-120 people on ICO divided between entrenchment and vanilla with most being entrenchment.  Since diplomacy there are 15-25 people on diplomacy and 20-30 on vanilla/entrenchment.  Games are much harder to find even if 2v2 or 3v3 much less 5v5.  It isn't nostagia for the good ole days but cold fact.  Can you honestly say that its just as easy now to get a game online than it used to be?  So yes OBVIOUSLY getting diplo to play with people multiplayer did not work out. 

And what exactly do you think makes diplomacy light years ahead of entrenchment?  Harder AI and AI missions?  That doesn't exactly help multiplayer unless you play comp stomps with unlocked teams.  More pirate options?  Tell me again how many people actually have pirates on online.  Pacts you say?  They are nice but seldom used unless its a multi star map or the game drags on longer than most.  Research to feed?  Once again its pointed out that this screws the suicide slot in most games and one has to run the majority of the time unless your neighbors suck terribly.  It is difficult to entrench especially considering SB will be killed by Skirantra spam and 2 economies versus one pretty much forcing you to hightail it to the middle once you see you are suicide slot.  Saying something is great and light years ahead of the rest just because its new is rather short sighted as well.  I am guessing you would buy a polished turd too just because its new and shiny and lightyears ahead of all those unpolished turds.  The improvement for multiplayer is marginal at best and to me was not worth 10 dollars because now I find it very difficult to get an online game at all.  I spent 10 dollars and didn't get much value for me.  I don't regret it because I got so much enjoyment out of vanilla and entrenchment and because I won't miss 10 dollars(others would) but I would not do it again.

 

[_]-Greyfox

I think Slackah has a point about feeding, which I hadn't thought of--the two guys on either side of the guy in the suicide spot can't get feed either.

I don't blame Diplomacy for the Skinatras; I'm pretty sure that's an issue in all three versions now.

Skirantras are indeed not a diplomacy issue and I do not blame diplomacy for that balance issue.  When it comes to 2v1 in suicide slot and you cannot keep away bombers from starbases, it becomes an issue to not have feed quickly.  The 2 sides shouldn't need feed if they are doubling someone without feed as well.  They come automatically with 2 times the resources.

 

[_]-Greyfox

man from space...lol what are you smoking man? (i want some ;))

LF are stronger now they than we have ever been (though thats not saying much) and carrier caps have been buffed for BOTH entrench and diplo

and to all those who cry rivers over OMG SPAM! this is an rts and in all rts spam is indeed a part of the game

if you lose to spam however that simply means you are not as good as the one who is apamming because all you need to do is scout and have a counter ready

starbases arnt any stronger than in entrench and LF have ALWAYS BEEN USELESS

Really?Hows that working out for you?That's not true.  Pacts are a priority once map placement and early position perimeters are established.  They take a while to develop, but they can be huge depending on the race you align with, and the supply pact for TEC is silly good.This brings up a good point; that sins is longer than the average RTS game as you point out, and one of the main benefits is the increased game flow/speed.  The time to get to the meat and potatoes of the match is not drawn out in an already lengthy time process.  This alone in my opinion opens up an entire new dynamic to the game.  And I've offered no mention of pirates, but for those that play with them they are awesome!  Especially in smaller games. 

To start a complainant narrative about Skirantras and screwed up mechanics is just throwing Diplomacy under the bus.

Rationalizing that 10 dollars didn't matter to you because as a whole the inherent enjoyment-value for the other versions compensates for Diplomacy falling on it's face:-I almost resent the suggestion that Diplomacy is a turd, but implying that some people should have been spared the injustice of having this monstrosity of a game fostered upon them is nothing short of sour grapes. 

So which is it?  Supporting a game that is one of a kind by participating with your patronage, or bemoaning the loss of an era by boycotting and slandering the latest version?

I think it is OBVIOUS.

 

I obviously did not boycott it since I have already bought it.  I do play some games on diplomacy if there are games available(which is to say not often since it averages so few players nowadays).  That does not mean I like diplomacy as an expansion.  I think the implementation of diplomacy has fallen short of what it could have been.  Not even looking at how multiplayer dropped off a cliff after it came out, it does not add much to the average ICO multiplayer game.  You can be a cheerleader for it all you like but it doesn't make me like it any better or think its just the best thing to happen to sins.  My polished turd remark was more to you saying that just because its new and shiny means its a great thing and not necessarily aimed directly at diplomacy.  For those that play a lot of single player, I am sure its a fine thing.  For me that plays multiplayer only, it falls flat.  I think you confuse the meaning of sour grapes.  Sour grapes means that since I can't get to said grapes they must be sour.  I have had these proverbial grapes already and find that I could do without them. 

 

[_]-Greyfox

The Hawk says, there is no ICO comeback, please move on with your lives, play CNC3(CNC4 IS CRAP), play Empire TW, play other games, but beware, the Hawk is known to kill nooblets, and that nooblet might be YOU!

 

BlackHawk

ICO is currently growing. fact