StarCraft® II

Not sure if this was on purpose kenoli or not, but since 0.87 whenever I capture the citadel it wipes ALL units, not just hostile. Felt dumb when I killed myself and two others at the same time. XD

i figured it out .. the citidel is a giant suicide button

Game is dead now. 1 hour played. Removing all the npc hostiles is kind of trivial, makes it not worth playing anymore in my opinion. We need some people to ressurect this game as I would really like to play it again with a group.

had a 3 hour game on this, with just clue hunting everywhere. found everything.

whirlwind didnt mention that i pretty much started figuring out everything >:c but anyways.

this game brought us about 3 hours of goosebump-ish freaky-i-dont-know-what-to-say action gameplay... and yea.

The game sucks

this gets played all the time now, updates dead?

This game is awsome slow start but when youre empire grow up you'll had enough things to do for lots of fun! Well balanced and competitive!

Ok I just took a look on this game after months, and a few ppl are playing it again.

I saw it was updated, I liked the changes. It requires more strategy now in early games

Less NPC made PC fights more important. Now we lose less army fighting NPC so it's more worthy to take lands and expand. I even tried a new strat of making a wall to the (old) t1 shared land and going toward t2 one first. It barely has NPCs now and its doors are larger, so it's impossible for a turtle player to hide from them. It also makes the game more dangerous, because throu them we have more paths to be attacked. Middle spots are weaker than others, because they have more routes to be attacked from.

Overall Kenoli did a GJ with these changes, I'd just add more gases on middle spot so that it doesn't rely on its t2 land, which is shared by 3 spots.

But there's still something annoying me, that made me stop playing again. It's the ally and preteam. In the few games I played, I saw 3 and (if I wanted to join it) even 4 players allying! With this, you can just ally half players, take 2 shared lands and just stay there watching they play while u build ur army. A jerk did that, he even allied me and faked being enemy to the guy fighting me, while they were allied from start!

If Kenoli doesn't wanna disable alliance completely, at least build some UI stuff to clearly point to everybody who are the existing alliances and who's on them, so that ppl don't lie about it and we can clearly see who are our enemies.

I myself would be very satisfied if ppl would truce and not enter each other's land, but not be able to join their army against another player. if their army come close, they fight each other, so no joined army will happen. And also only 1 person can win, so they'll have to fight some time. Add this feature and see how it goes :p

im curious, are you 13 years old, or is english your third language hikari?

I think I was tired at that time :p

Sometimes they ally their friends to teach them to be better players which i dont really have a problem with (its probably more of a hindrance).

Then play 2man game against NPCs! If you ally on a real game and you are close, your joined army WILL make it unbalanced!

And why ppl lie saying they are enemies, but when we watch replay we see they were allied from begining? They are just hiding behind their ally and unbalancing it.

The point here is that building army is expensive, and fighting make you lose a lot of units and get weaker. It's normal in FFA games, that you fight somebody and just after it you must fight somebody else, that makes fighting risky and you must think clearly before starting a war against somebody, you must manip and also use diplomacy, that's the fun on FFA games.

But make alliance and join forces? That's noob coward gameplay!

I would however, disagree with you on the scouting point. For any good player, more information can only lead to more security and an incentive to attack, while less information will lead to insecurity and the need to turtle up because you don't know what could be on your flank when you move out.

lol good points :)

Well I loved WC3 FFA and it had scout, but as I sad, it also was easier to build army and we could cross whole map in less than 1min, so it's more dynamic. Scouting in this game would overpower anybody using it and force everybody to scout all the time. Also, if scout is added, detection would also be required, and also force us to keep army in all the land to kill any scout.

You dont need to turtle just because you can't see. You just need to think well, get a good strat, know what to do and what to talk, who you should attack and when to fall back.

And that's the problem with ally. If you attack somebody weak, you may be attacked by his ally! You don't know who is allied, you may be asking for help to somebody who's allied with your enemy. That's boring and break whole FFA and manip structure. All you have to do is ally 2 or 3 ppl, tech and build army and wait they kill each other.

My point was only about wanting to be able to scout what was on the other side of creeps I cannot kill yet. Describing how this game differs from a melee FFA doesn't refute this point. No matter how many gas geysers you own none of them will be able to see past those creeps. Scouting has much more uses than map control in a diplomacy game, if you don't understand that then i dont really feel like having this conversation with you.

Well that's solved now, creeps are almost all gone. I understand you wanna see what's on the other side of each of your paths, to be able to choose where to advance. But think about it, what'd happen if you choose to go to the weaker neightboor, and the stronger one sees it and decides to attack you? Now you have somebody strong on 1 door and somebody weak on the other that you can't attack. Then all you can do is turtle!

I wouldn't call turtling players cowardly perse, they just feel like winning. If the game is made so that it favors being defensive then good on them for doing it. It might not be as fun as being aggressive, which is why i don't do it, but the focus should be on improving the game to balance between aggressive and defensive strategies not putting down those who want to play defensive because it happens to be a little bit stronger at the moment.

I agree. If it was balanced it'd be ok. Turtling is harder now, because with fewer NPCs we can expand faster, and we can be attacked by any path we have. Turtles will be eventually attacked by stronger ppl and lose, so now we're forced to expand if we wanna win. Now we must solve the ally balance :D

You seem to think that anyone who doesn't play your way is a coward and a noob

You didn't understand. The point isn't not playing my way, it's the unbalance. "My way" is weaker, because "I" couldn't hit a "turtle" and he could hit "me" just because "I" didn't turtle. That forces everybody to turtle basically. But now it's solved, we can just wall our "old t1" path and go our "old t2" path, which has larger doors and can't be turtled.

and the only way to really play is to gather up two large armies and attack each other in the center of the map and have one of them win and the other lose.

Well that's not my fault that building army is slow and expensive. Being that way, losing units on fights makes you weaker against somebody that never fights and just tech and saves his army. That's the game structure, not how I want it to be, I just adapted to it. And again, that's fixed now too, because we can't spend resources on teching anymore. To tech faster we must spend resources on farms, that makes gas be the bottleneck, and to solve that we must expand. If somebody just keep building units, farms and command centers, he'll soon be low on gas and feel forced to search for more gaysers, which will require fighting. That's a great game structure, how 1 of your resources source can be built anywhere while the other requires expanding.

What is interesting is watching different tatics, one player defending against another's powerful offensive, a sneak attack, defeating an opponent that is ahead of you.

And that's what I was complaing about! "The offensive guy" can't simply win "the defensive one" in early game. you were penalized for fighting and gifted for laying there deffending and waiting, it was unbalanced.

About your story fighting me, that's something I had to work out, I used to not build walls and just focus all my attention on attacking. Anybody could enter my land and pwn me. Now I use to build walls as I advance and solved that a little. Of course I'm not expert on the game, but still you ran from me and at that time I wasn't skilled enough to see I could have played better, and I was angry with that unbalance. There's also a way to move faster on the land, I use it sometimes :p

Again, I congratulate Kenoli for this new version, it solved most of the issued I was point out. If we solve alliance unbalance (remove alliance at all or make it so that alliances aren't so strong) will make the game almost perfect.

I apologize for typing so much :p

Resuming my thougts about this new version:

1) game is somehow live again, it takes 2 or 3 minutes to get 8 ppl on the lobby

2) it's more fun now. If you wanna turtle, just get some land then wall it. Doors will be larger and harder to def, so it's balanced. On the other hand, if you wanna expand, just wall ur narrower door and hit the other, you won't find a turtle there and will be able to have fun fighting.

3) I loved the new tech system. To tech faster you need more ground space, that forces you to expand and penalizes those who wanna turtle and tech without building army.

On older versions, when teching was merely based on spending resources, all you had to do was wall one door and be protected by NPCs on the other, then not build armies and spend all your little income on tech, while offensive guys couldn't match you because they were spending building armies being killed.

4) Fewer NPCs on "old t2" paths scared me :P They are so few that it's better to wall your narrower door and hit the other one. This solved turtle overpowereness. In early game you won't have resources to build a good wall on the larger door, and even if u do so it will be broken easier.

5) On the other hand, ally became a much worse problem than before. During 2011 the most I used to see was allies of 3 noobs that didn't build anything and stayed weak.

Now, in the few games I played, I saw a lot of preteams and allies of even 4 players! I saw ppl hiding behind their allies, and ppl pretending to be fighting while they were allied from begining. It seems alliers improved their skills :p

To solve that, my suggestions are:

a) Build a window listing all players, and for each ally, add a colored icon close to players names. We'll see who is allied and when it starts. If I myself see 3man alliances in begining, I just quit the game :P

b) Disable alliance. If somebody wanna truce, they just wall their door and never touch each other. They'd still be able to join forces against somebody that's neightboor to them, but that happens on all FFA games since SC1.

c) Allow alliances, but disable units "friendness". If units of allied players come together, they will fight each other, and if they enter an ally land, they'll hit his buildings. This way they won't be able to join forces.

d) Create some penalty for alliances, making each member weaker. They'll be able to join armies, but will be forced to do so to be able to match single players. This way, in exemple, 1 guy will focus on macroing both bases while the other takes all their armies and micro them.

Love the gameplay, but for the Arcade mode you really need to do something about the upgrades and teching. The game would be a lot more fun with a couple of small minor changes

1) Add additional gas cost to everything. Because the game is pertinent on obtaining land for gas, there should be one STRONG position by computer players making it tougher to expand out and build to gain additional gas, this prevents the First to Tech game though and makes it more fairplay. You want to extend the lower level game play and war-ing vs this being a tech race. EX: Each starting position has one or two gas spots without enemies (This should be made consistent throughout the starting positions) but where enemies are located in areas that are NOT starting positions, there should be more-strong units making it difficult to expand. This helps everyone playing on the map get up to speed at the same pace, making battles more evenly matched and therefore, more fun.

2) Building a city needs to be more expensive. It needs to require additional gas as well. I would say 500-500. People like to turtle in this game and its extremely annoying. Maybe limit the number of cities within a certain territory if thats possible?

3) Computer must take over for players that leave. Yes the computer is your enemy, but the computer should build and be on the most extreme difficulty setting. You want there to be a challenge for the players that remain if someone leaves. There is no fun for anyone when people leave because they automatically are attacked by someone.

4) Add an ally feature, but limit it to two people only. Maybe add this as a gameplay setting. Instead of FFA, allow the game lobby to change it between two settings. FFA or TEAM 2v2v2v2

Thats all I have for now. Love the game though. Im going to go play a match right now!

I dont quite agree with Hikari for the most part lol. But alliances, I think we share the sentiment.

I would say, remove SC2's ally system and make a custom one. Let's say, you can only ally civs you have explored, they dont show up otherwise. Don't set players hostile each other. Set them as neutral. Then you can manually declare war.

Maybe even research techs to have alliances of more than 2 people.

Eventually a bigger, different map that allows more players should be considered.

Turtling- although annoying, should be a valid strategy, it is possible in civ games "cultural" victory.

WE SHOULD INTRODUCE WONDERS: Require time, teach, and lots of resouces, but gives nice bonuses.

PS: I'm happy to see a lot of my previously suggested changes are now in effect in the game, specially regarding unit balancing. However, Kenoli hasn't been around in a long time, and not sure if he will. So I was wondering if there is a way to transfer modding rights, so devoted, faithful players can work on it.

Ok i found out what to do with the ring give it to a bird and it will take you to a giant tree were you will get a silver chain. next look around the map for all the items there are 3 as far as i know there is a bronze key witch opens up the mine and unleashes a giant monster. a sappire shard that is just laying around. then there is a ruby but i am not sure were to get that (sorry). now go to the island in the top right with all the stuff and put the scv down in the stone heng thing and kill a few units in it next the scv some fires should light up and after they all light up a unit will appear thats all me and my friends got to, so what do i do from here?

Hi AngelSlayer.

1) It was this way before. Read some of my posts to see the problems that it was causing.

2) lol finally I'm not the only one complaining about turtling :P

But I don't like your idea, that would limit flexibility. I like how it is now: building gas and farms is damn expensive, and we need farms to build cities, which are also expensive. To build farms and cities we need a lot of gas, which requires us to expand, and without them both we don't have minerals to build army. And if we spend on them, we don't spend on army. So it's balanced.

3) That alrdy happens. But to design and develop a custom AI able to keep progressing a city is very hard.

4) Good idea, limit the amout of ally members and let us choose in begining to enable or disable ally. If it's enabled and limited, everybody ally with somebody and that's it.

BUT... as ally is creating more trouble now than before, if this feature was added, we'd have more preteams.

Lol Rond :p

I'd love a dynamic diplomacy system, with neutral, ally and enemy status. As the game is now, we don't need to expand farther than2 starting lands, so we can have 4 or 5 lone players using that system. Would be very fun... if we don't have 3x1x1 setups and players know how to play FFA.

I mean, in pro FFA matches in the WC3 ages, if somebody is too strong, other ppl ally against him. So, of we have a 2x1x1x1 setup, everybody would see that alliance as the biggest threat and focus on them, a situation another player could use to manip and get stronger.

I myself would disable alliance completely, at most allowing shared view if carebears would cry too much. We had alliances in FFA for a long time without sharing view and not allying armies, we don't need it now. Let skill handle truces.

Turtling- although annoying, should be a valid strategy, it is possible in civ games "cultural" victory.

Of course it should be valid, but it can't be overpower. The game is more balanced now, because while turtles keep building and teching, we can expand without losing so many units to NPCs. If they dont ally and don't backstap, we ok. We want it balanced.

Wonders is a good idea, as long as ppl don't stop fighting and make it a resource rush game. It's still common to see ppl complaining for being attacked, as if it wasn't a FFA war game. Imagine if somebody could win just by gathering resources and not building armies. And if turtling was overpower and with a little army somebody could def from everything and use all remaining resource on a wonder....

PS: yesterday a dying player allied with his killer and we have 2 big allies watching each other and waiting to war. While that this guy got all the items, sent them to that altar on the west... and won the game! It was sad that I couldn't match my army against other team, but it was interesting to see that somebody with no army and good relationship can gather those items and win the game!

Hi AngelSlayer.

1) It was this way before. Read some of my posts to see the problems that it was causing.

2) lol finally I'm not the only one complaining about turtling :P

But I don't like your idea, that would limit flexibility. I like how it is now: building gas and farms is damn expensive, and we need farms to build cities, which are also expensive. To build farms and cities we need a lot of gas, which requires us to expand, and without them both we don't have minerals to build army. And if we spend on them, we don't spend on army. So it's balanced.

3) That alrdy happens. But to design and develop a custom AI able to keep progressing a city is very hard.

4) Good idea, limit the amout of ally members and let us choose in begining to enable or disable ally. If it's enabled and limited, everybody ally with somebody and that's it.

BUT... as ally is creating more trouble now than before, if this feature was added, we'd have more preteams.

Lol Rond :p

I'd love a dynamic diplomacy system, with neutral, ally and enemy status. As the game is now, we don't need to expand farther than2 starting lands, so we can have 4 or 5 lone players using that system. Would be very fun... if we don't have 3x1x1 setups and players know how to play FFA.

I mean, in pro FFA matches in the WC3 ages, if somebody is too strong, other ppl ally against him. So, of we have a 2x1x1x1 setup, everybody would see that alliance as the biggest threat and focus on them, a situation another player could use to manip and get stronger.

I myself would disable alliance completely, at most allowing shared view if carebears would cry too much. We had alliances in FFA for a long time without sharing view and not allying armies, we don't need it now. Let skill handle truces.

Turtling- although annoying, should be a valid strategy, it is possible in civ games "cultural" victory.

Of course it should be valid, but it can't be overpower. The game is more balanced now, because while turtles keep building and teching, we can expand without losing so many units to NPCs. If they dont ally and don't backstap, we ok. We want it balanced.

Wonders is a good idea, as long as ppl don't stop fighting and make it a resource rush game. It's still common to see ppl complaining for being attacked, as if it wasn't a FFA war game. Imagine if somebody could win just by gathering resources and not building armies. And if turtling was overpower and with a little army somebody could def from everything and use all remaining resource on a wonder....

PS: yesterday a dying player allied with his killer and we have 2 big allies watching each other and waiting to war. While that this guy got all the items, sent them to that altar on the west... and won the game! It was sad that I couldn't match my army against other team, but it was interesting to see that somebody with no army and good relationship can gather those items and win the game!

My name is Rond and I approve this message

This is a really good game is there a way you could finish the puzzle though that is the one thing i dont like about this game

The mod rights should be transfered, or someone should remake the game. I think that needs to happen before the fan base can grow.

P.S. The maker of the game played his last match on 6/25/2012

So, I played Civilization Sapphire for the first time in a long time today. The game seems much improved from when I first saw it 6 months ago and is, from what I have seen, both fun and balanced. That being said there are two fundamental things--in my eyes anyhow--it is missing that could both improve its game play and bring it closer to the ideals of civilization.

The biggest issue I noticed is that economic strength is solely based around number of farms and you quickly run out of room, there are very few options to increase your economy other then to acquire more land and thus the best economic option is warmongering and when warmongering is the best economic strat it tends to become the only strat (not that i mind) but it would be great to be able to upgrade farms to another level at certain ages allowing smaller empires to stay in them game a bit more (both times i played i was able to simply out-muscle everyone on the map with warmongering and farm spam).

The second thing would be an upgrade function just as in real civ which should be expensive but worth it if you are in an intense conflict.

So had anyone found the last of the 3 saphires becuase i know i only need one more (one from mines and nuetral camps), i took put them both in the tower thingy and it started glowing at the triangle but i still need the third one has anyone found it or is it uncompleted?