Top priority is definitely testing, and getting lots of testers (particularly the top players) to run through with a fine-tooth comb.  I'm pretty good, but nowhere near the level of some of the great players out there, and we'll need them to see the full effect of these sorts of changes.

I suspect there probably will be at least one more patch, but we do need confirmation one way or another before we go through with this.  For the time being, I'm going on the presumption that the devs are reading these posts and jotting down notes for the patch (this is similar to the silence preceeding 1.18), and I personally don't want to go ahead with anything too comprehensive until we get some confirmation.

Other than that, I'd love to be a part of this and fully support the concept.

Include the optimization mod please. 

Yes, please add the Sins Optimization Mod to it.

Unfortunately, even if a great patch is compiled I think it will be difficult to get the online multiplayer community to use it.  It would be like trying to herd cats.  They won't even get the Sins Optimization Mod.

Definitely getting some official recognition/support will be key to this mod.

If we're going to compile it with the Sins Optimization Mod, we may want to also add in some other passive goodies, including perhaps some of the map packs out there.

This is a good idea...if this idea was proposed to SD instead of a straight up patch, then they are much more likely to go for it...they made this game and they own it, I don't think they're going to let us patch it for them unless the community makes compromises on making it mandatory...

Demigod... many players have made the observation that since our developers were yanked to work on Demigod last year there have been three patches, whereas the year before there were sixteen, and much more developer activity on the forums and in multiplayer.  It might be Demigod envy, as there has been an entire series of patches promised for Demigod and nothing at all for Trinity.  Promise us some patches!  However more radical theories have been proposed, such as that Stardock only pretend to work with different developers for tax reasons, and in fact there is only one full development team, with different departments 'hiring' themselves out to other departments as necessary.  This would mean that the pre-Demigod activity was only due to all the 'companies' working on this game at the same time...  Though then we might ask why Demigod can be patched while everyone should be working on the new turn-based game?

Also, Demigod is another game that suffers from balance issues and a small community as a result, so that even for Demigod just fixing the bugs- and it may have more remaining 'bugs' than Trinity- won't take the game to the level that it can achieve.  Trinity is also far more complex a game than Demigod, and contains much more mechanics that aren't bugged but are broken in terms of their effect on the game.  The vaunted AI relations expansion has led to AI that are continually at war with each other, for instance.  Demigod only has two sides in any one game.

As to how to proceed, I'm not keen on the thread linked in the first post, much of which has been taken up with a detailed discussion on how to buff the Sova, based on opinions only- like any number of other threads.  The Sova would not be on my top ten list of fixes that are needed, nor my top twenty.  The ship is already strong enough for good players.

What I have suggested before is that any community patch needs to start with a committed group of players who are capable of playing regularly, testing the current balance and posting their replays, to demonstrate what they have discovered.  To start with changes would just be repeating the original error of insufficient playtesting, which is how the game has ended up as it is.  That and Demigod.

The create part should be be the second part of the process, not the first.  If the current game isn't playtested enough and with replays to show for it, then any community patch has no credibility.  So form a regular multiplayer group first of all.  The next step is deciding how to test.  I'd go for the same set maps to take out the random element, and 1v1- though you'd also need some 2s and 3s to test the effect of pacts.  Then play for a couple of months with the same group of players, no new players or smurfs, so that the strengths and weaknesses of each player can be taken into account.  Post replays for discussion, rather than opinions.  The original 1.18 'buff the Skirantra' thread, bewailing the invincibility of the Sova- where another player posted the replay of the game mentioned, showing conclusively that it did not demonstrate any need for a buff at all- should be an example of the superiority of proof over opinion.  Just a pity that the developers ignored it.. 

We essentially were going through the capital ships, starting from the strongest (which need the fewest changes) and working our way to the weakest (which need the most).  We're in the middle right now, talking about battleships, the Kol in particular.

The current patch has been out for months; we have a pretty good idea of the current issues.  I say we make some ballpark changes across the board and test them, then iterate to find the sweet spot.

The first version would be a trial, with no pretense of being precisely balanced.  We'd take some feedback, make some changes, and keep iterating.  Each iteration would get longer (with hopefully fewer and more subtle issues) until we could finally work towards a final version.

I feel that it's worth pointing out that at no point were the developers of Sins pulled to work on Demigod. Ironclad was left to work on whatever thye wanted. However, the people at Stardock responsible for uploading patches and such to Impulse were pulled, which is why there was a long period of no patches. Also, Ironclad is not working on Elemental, only Stardock is.

And the reason Demigod got so many patches was because at release multiplayer was a mess, and a lot of stuff needed to be fixed. Since those problems were more or less fixed, much fewer patches have been released, and many planned future updates have apparently been scrapped (Clan Wars, for one), although a lot of the blame for that can be laid on GPG.

I stated that in the thread because I didn't know players like Darvin, Cykur, and GoaFan (and there are others I can't think of at the moment) would be dedicated enough to carry the thread on (balancing 15 caps takes a while)...I figured the best I would get from the discussion would be suggestions for one or two simple but sweeping changes that would help balance the game...instead, there is great discussion and a lot of contributions from several people...

The very first post suggested to do the capital ships first, and other people agreed, so I changed the direction of the thread...there are 4 pages on that thread to read, the Sova is intermittently talked about on only a few of them...I may have made that statement when I created the thread (before there were any posts) but I don't describe the thread anymore in the same manner...the point isn't "let's play semantics, you are wrong I am right"...the thread is changing and hopefully will continue to change as time goes on...just because someone isn't interested on the current focus of the thread doesn't mean they shouldn't pop back in later, the thread may be on an entirely new topic...

This isn't early frustration, this is a sincere attempt to balance the game...I am not an amazing player, and I know that, but I'm not the only person contributing ideas here either, several experienced players are and anyone can contribute ideas...this is not "let's play nerf the faction you hate" because I suck and hate PMs and poor me, I lose every time to Vasari...I want the game to be better...action gets done by those who act, not those who should act...

If you're looking for an easy win, they yeah, we could play a 1v1...but honestly, coming up with ideas to balance the game does not require being amazing it at...it requires dedication, a willingness to compromise, and a sincere effort in balancing the game, not just changing it the way you like it...one can have a good grasp of the game and how the elements are balanced without being a pro...

I know you have ideas on how to improve the game (especially with non-military aspects)...please don't avoid the thread forever just because right now it is focused on capital ships...

I agree...in fact once the caps are balanced we should probably start getting that tested, and move on to a new thread to address the next focus...

Demigod has so much potential, you've got a limited number of maps and demigods with a variety of combinations that should make for great play, it's just a pity that the game has remained so skewed for so long and some of the stuff available is so poor compared to the items taken by experienced players.  It's my big problem with Stardock, they can produce games that seem interesting and look good and then suffer from some really crass balance issues, for far too long.  Perhaps its a playtest problem.  One aspect of Demigod that stuck out, though, is that there was a list of proposed changes before the 1.2(?) offered for discussion so that the community had a say, and the patch was then extensively revised to take account of what was said.  That's true community involvement. 

Online, the majority are of the opinion that Scramble Bombers was boosted too much and that the phase missile upgrade is easily the best.  Also, many players are reluctant to build LF as they are considered ineffective- and often won't build them even in the face of heavy flak or carrier spams.  More importantly, there is a huge list of techs that are never used or almost never used. 

The point is that I shouldn't get an easy win from someone who has a good grasp of the game.  Also, to become better at the game only requires the qualities you list- some dedication, a willingness to accept defeat by better players to learn from them, and an element of sincerity, not blaming your own poor play on poor balance.  Also, you needn't fear another loss to Vasari, as I don't play Vasari in 1.19/1.05/1.01.

By playing 1v1 you will gain new insight into balance, and become aware of new strategies, and old supposedly nerfed ones.  Here's a fairly straightforward balance question- are Advent considered weak only if they don't use Repulse, or are they still weak even with Repulse?  To answer it you would need to have seen a good player handle a 'battleball'.  Then you might want to amplify your comments on Illuminators from the experience.  Have you experienced much starbase play?  Pacts?  A focus on capital ships is typical of newer players.

I'm not looking for an easy win, I play to discover whether other players have any strategies or ideas to contribute, that I could add to my game.  I play pros when they let me.  I also watch and comment on replays, for the same reason.  If you decide you want a game, just tell me when you're available.   

I will contribute anything I can.

I specialize in particle effects and gameinfo files. I can also do manual mesh point editing (Not really so useful).

I have no idea how much my few skills can be utilized, but just wanted to throw out the fact that I have a little experience and a willingness to assist.

I have an almost 0 skill level in playing sins. I can crush a hard computer in 1v1, but have a hard time with an unfair. No help in that area from me.

Woah guys, first of all I didn't want this to turn to game specifics. I don't care whose "mod" we use for the basis of an official patch, in fact we might use several, but that is to be decided later.

That is unfortunate news from the demigod players, but I think we can still work with it. The fact that community fixes were included at all is a sign that stardock is at least willing to explore this direction, and I would say balance changes are easier to implement than bug changes. IF the community strongly supports them, that is, which is the point of this thread. There is no doubt that we will have an a lot an arguments about what constitutes as a balance, but when it comes time to truly push these changes to be an official patch, we all need to put our differences aside a support it as a whole. To do that we need a system to decide on changes, which is something we need to at least start discussing.

We have some options for deciding on how best to accomplish this. The most obvious is simple direct democracy where everyone has one vote and the option that has the most votes wins. However, that could lead to a lot of people voting who don't really care about balance. On the other extreme we could choose an oligarchy of qualified Sins players who clearly know the game decide everything, but that risks the community patch not being a true product of the entire "community". Or there could be an intermediate option, where respected players and people who have shown dedication by volunteering to test potential patches and things can vote or otherwise come up with a consensus. Which one we do I don't care, but I think we need to establish some way of determining what the community consensus is that will be respectable to the entities we will be trying to persuade.

As to the optimization mod, I was not planing on including it as an official patch (meaning having it supported by impulse) as some of its changes may hinder the game experience in single player or for players who prefer small maps. Though some of its features that truly have no effect on how the game looks may be worth to include.