It's time to begin a debate about Orgovs.
They are severely overpowered. Either the damage they do needs to be reduced by, say, 50%, or they need to have their speed cut in half or some combination of reduced speed and damage. I just saw a guy use them to hit-and-run, raiding and killing enemy structures with almost complete impunity. (I'm not blaming him for doing what the game allows, I'm just pointing it out.) They should either do less damage than they do now, or, if they are going to be powerful anti-structure tanks, then they should move slowly. Their purpose should be jump in and gang bang a starbase in mass or to clean up after a winning battle. No other race has a unit that can single-handedly destroy structures all over the map (with just a couple units) while being able to easily run away from pursuers, avoiding them by jumping from well to well.
As they stand now, Orgovs are severely overpowered and have made TEC the top race by a wide margin.
I dont exactly call something that can lock up an infinite amount of strike craft pretty much indefinitely balanced. I am sorry you do not want to lose your OP stuff but that does not make it a good and balanced thing. No one even uses the thing to build strike craft.
[_]-Greyfox
You haven't really replied to my post. Sins is counter based game. Phase trap/SB combo is countered by TEC with ogrov (very effectively) and with SB insertion from Vasari (with some backup). Both work fine. It is not OP. It makes game diverse, fun and skill intensive. Advent in theory should use starfish, but it doesn't really work well=Advent is the problem, not phase trap. Try playing different race for a change. Just FYI I haven't played Vasari in a month.
PS: Fact that you posted in Ogrov thread only to write something about phase trap only proves my point.
Ogrovs work fine this is true(one would expect that in a thread about ogrovs being OP). Vasari against vasari is a bit different considering if one has phasic trap already set up then its likely they will either have their own SB up and running or can well before you can build and upgrade yours since there is a penalty in enemy wells. Outside of that they can do a bit better than advent because assailants are better against single targets than advent but still they are left with the generally poor solution of dealing with an SB with lrf which is not ideal by any stretch. So rather than fix something thats imbalanced, your advice is to play something other than advent. Of course you aren't playing vasari now... it's no longer the race du jour.
The fact that I was posting about phasic trap has more to do with the fact that it was no longer about ogrovs alone and was on the topic of buffing hangar antimatter and I pointed out that this would be exacerbating phasic trap(something that has been touted as OP in several threads). Reading is fundamental.
OK guess that's why no one tries to reason with you. Guess I'll just join the crowd.
You have your opinion. I have mine. In the end it only matters what the devs opinion is and what they take from our discourse. I am not saying phasic trap should be removed, just reined in some and not buffed indirectly.
Gotta agree with Mecha-Lenin on this one. If 2/3 races can effectively counter some "thing", the fault lies not with the "thing" being countered but with the inability of 1/3 races to counter it. Phasic trap could be argued to be a counter to the uber SC fleets from advent. Erego, we should not hate on the counter (phasic trap) but we should advocate a tweak to the Illum to be a more effective counter to the hangar itself.
I also advocate a buff to the shield upgrades of Advent such that not only does each upgrade increase a percentage of mitigation but also a small percentage to block phase missiles. A slight tweak could still make PM viable without being utterly game ending for a late Advent fleet.
Scrambled bombers of old could be countered by 2/3 of the races...
If you were Vasari, you could always just build as many Skirantras as your enemy...and if you were TEC, simply building a ton of LRMs and avoiding a 2nd cap could do you a lot of good in driving off Skirantras...
Yet SB was still OP, despite the fact that 2/3 of the factions could counter it...
Phasic trap is OP...it simply is...it does not make Vasari OP and it is not game breaking, but as a game element it is simply too strong and far more powerful than the other two factions' hangars...
Quite frankly, that Vasari can counter its own faction is irrelevant because it's a mirror match (and building a SB is a very expensive counter)....for all intents and purposes, phasic trap is only easily countered by 1 out of 2 factions...and to claim phasic trap is a Vasari counter against Advent SC is just ridiculous....Vasari have the best bombers by far and arguably have the best fighters (they do slightly less damage than Advent's but are more resilient and have PMs)...they also have JW, repair cloud, and microphasing aura, they don't need more SC cover...
I think a good Advent ability for a counter would be a variant of domination that captures enemy strike fighters.
Well yeah...someone would have to do it.
It would be great though as an ability for a starbase and for carriers.
It could be nice if it caused the equivalent of "inverted rage" and made the enemy strike craft attacking the Advent unit turn and attack their friendly linked ship for a period of time--that would allow Advent carriers a little more life and effectiveness and decrease effectiveness of the enemy temporarily.
They can only target structures. If you seriously think it's an issue, than change the damage value or gameplay.constants value on their bonus.
I'm not that sure that a cheap 1-slot turret would be considered a "large military installation", but I get what you're talking about. Still, in my opinion, it's not "so simple" to counter bombers which would otherwise eat away at the turret(s) until they're all dead. It takes a bunch of hits from flak to take down a bomber, let alone a whole squadron. The real counter would be a fighter squadron, but of course that couldn't conceivably fit inside a turret.
I think something which would make sense which would go a ways towards solving this problem would be for planets to automatically receive a squadron or two of strikecraft as the planets gain more population - maybe one squad per 50 population, rounded up, which could start being manufactured 5 minutes after colonization. It doesn't really make sense for a single ship or carrier to just sit in a hostile Terran gravity well and have the ability to blast everything until it's dead, without the planet itself offering any resistance.
Then again, what matters most IMO is what enables good strategy, not what "makes sense" or is realistic.
I guess I would just like a little more love given to us Turtling players
If I had my way, I'd always be a turtling player. I hate rushing and defending from rushes, but it's an unfortunate necessity of MP.
Still, when you consider the nature of space, it makes sense that static defenses would generally be vastly inferior to comparable firepower in the form of a fleet.
We're talking about how it is in standard online multiplayer, not about how people could mod to balance what they think needs to be balanced...
Cheaper hangars with greater AM replenishment rates is a tweak that has been needed ever since the carrier cruisers were buffed let alone the carrier capitals. Stationary structures like hangars should not cost almost as much as carrier cruisers when they have less firepower.
The concerns about phasic trap seem legitimate however. The solution might be to increase the cooldown and also to limit the number of strikecraft affected, as it is the ability is superior to many capital abilities, which seems off.
Also it seems generally agreed that starfish could use a buff. As they have to get to fairly close range to be effective it would seem to make sense for them to having increased shielding. I don't consider the Ogrovs to be the problem.
One long-standing issue that I'd like to see addressed is the faulty militia target focus on a newly captured planet, which allows constructors to build turrets right under the noses of heavy defence forces. A quicker way to get at the problem if this proves too difficult might be to have a general reduction in the health of colony frigates, which I consider too tough for their role, unless they are supposed to be able to solo capture planets.
There are still areas of the game like mines and trade that need thorough revision, however hopefully we are getting near the point where tweaks are enough to bring us closer to balance.
Whether or not hangers get a buff, phasic traps need a nerf. This ability, if tweaked a bit, would be something I'd expect from one of the new Titans. Single-handedly shutting down an arbitrarily large fleet of strike craft is something more powerful than any capital ships currently offered. If this ability gets a target cap, then we're probably in the clear.
Careful, this would be a significant buff to Vasari since the Vasari scouts are already very good at killing enemy colony frigates when fighting over neutrals. Reducing colony frigate health further would be an even bigger hit.
It also would have little effect on their ability to colonize planets. You can always lure militia to the opposite side of the gravity well, and the colony frigate will easily arrive in time to colonize the planet before they even begin to attack it. You'd need to do a little more planning, but this wouldn't stop anyone. To top this off, it would also have no effect on those who use colony capital ships for this purpose, which are already highly favoured by economizers.
Making militia target construction frigates is also a bad idea because it turns this strategy into a crap shoot. Construction frigates spawn in a random location in the gravity well. It could be on the other side far away from militia (giving enough time to build a turret) or it could be right next to them, resulting in the construction frigate's instant demise. Unless this randomness is removed in favour of a deterministic approach then the best solution (making militia go after the guys building the turret) is non-viable.
I think most of the multiplayer involves laning. With that being the case, you can fix it.
Nice to hear from you again Darvin. Perhaps time to boost the economy threads again with a patch incoming?
Can't agree that a colony frigate nerf would boost Vasari, after the very early game Vasari are the faction that uses them the most!
Yeah, having a player have to use more than one ship to colonise would be the point of the change. It's not always as straightforward as you make it out to be. And whats wrong with requiring even a little more skill?
Again the entire point would be to make colonising with almost no forces more of a gamble or 'crap shoot.' I don't consider the random position of the constructor frigate would make the change 'non-viable' any more than random militia strengths already make the game 'non-viable.' On a planet you might get a spawn far enough away to complete one turret. But a single turret wouldn't stop the constructor being destroyed anyway except in very limited circumstances, no? Where is the great difference?
Or Rebellion, for that matter.
I guess we'd need to see it in practice. On maps pockmarked with neutrals, Vasari already are going to town sniping out colony frigates with their scout mobs, and I could just see more fragile colony frigates making it even easier than it is now.
The difference is that you know the militia strength when you commit to your colonization tactic, but you do not know where your constructor will spawn and cannot plan accordingly. I argue strongly to make it more difficult rather than chance-based.
Where dealing with larger militia forces is skill-based, gambling on where your constructor appears is purely chance-based.
You'd still own the planet and constructor replacements are free. This is a very soft penalty.
I have a suggestion--why not create the equivalent of an open source project and create a running mod that is expressly for play testing balance changes in the vanilla game?
Those players with extensive experience with and understanding of the game could create a thread posting their observations.
I think it might help gel things for the developers and certainly increase the chance of the specific changes you want being included in the next release.
And on the subject of Vasari...would not making only Vasari scouts and colony frigates a little more fragile balance this a little better?
This is what Project Equilibrium was last year. It's since added new content to the game, so it isn't strictly a balance mod anymore. Overall it was a great experiment and we got to see a lot of changes in action.
Why would you only target Vasari?
There are actually two versions, one with new content and one without...
While on the whole it seems like a nice idea, there are two major flaws with such a project...
First, lack of consensus...certainly a mod can be used to try different things, but some game mechanics are just broken and beyond mere tweaking/balance...
I'll give you an example...animosity simply is an awful ability...most nearly all players agree it needs a secondary effect...however, it's very difficult to agree on what exactly that secondary effect should be...the issue is that more than just mere tweaking is needed to make this ability useful...so, more opinion and less actual balancing becomes relevant here...I finally committed to adding a DPS effect (like the passive ability on the Destra Crusader), but others advocated things like an accuracy or weapon cooldown penalty to affected ships...
In truth, both ideas could be perfectly balanced, but then which one is right? That's where things get tricky...ultimately, the mod only because a test ground and could never be implemented for the community as a whole...I mean, imagine trying to get consensus on how to properly balance mines....it would just be a nightmare, far easier if individuals simply post their own changes and people praise/critique them...
Second, many changes in the mod become obsolete with new updates...for example, v1.3 of diplomacy will include completely new pacts...not just rebalanced pacts, new pacts...this renders many of the potential changes for balancing the current pact system completely useless...this doesn't mean a balance mod can't be made now, but it certainly hurts one's motivation when they know in a month (or week) that all their work will be obsolete...
There are clearly some advantages of community work...many changes in the last update were tried in Project Equilibrium...for example, the Jarrasul's colonizing ability spawning extra constructors (and I believe it was Darvin's idea to try that)...
However, that same ability also shows how pointless such community work can be...Project Equilibrium had that ability completely working before the devs released Diplomacy v1.2...however, the Dev's initial release of that patch was bugged, the Jarrasul colonizing ability caused a mini-dump when used...we ran into the same problem with Project Equilibrium and fixed it...why then didn't the devs release a non-bugged issue? Why did it take them a while to fix it when they had a working version right in front of them?
Maybe it was just an honest mistake....or maybe a lack of communication....or maybe the result of a time crunch...
Or maybe the devs didn't actually look at Project Equilibrium at all....
Bottom line is, such a project would need confidence that it would be taken seriously...
Project Equilibrium is not dead...I have been testing changes of my own for quite a while, either with LAN games or with using the dev .exe files so I can pit fleets against eachother...
In general though the project fell apart...the ICO community is small, the mod had very few downloads (I think it peaked in like the 60s), and testing it takes time...furthermore, there comes a point where people will accept the game as "good enough" and may scoff at the idea of a balance mod (even if there are small balance issues)...
I for one won't be posting any improvements to Project Equilibrium until after Rebellion comes out...that's a long time from now, but I simply don't have the time or the will to do such an endeavor when I know I'll have to do it all over again as soon as Rebellion is out...furthermore, how many more updates to Diplomacy before Rebellion?
In general, mod projects should suit you...they should embrace changes you like since all that matters is what you enjoy...since PE had very few people, I've mostly moved on to trying changes for just me and my friends and our LAN games..
@Selucia
I dimly remember seeing the post but had no idea what it was. Sorry I missed it (though I'd have been hard pressed to have played consistently and a lot).
I think if you could get two or more of the players who have been publicly involved since the first beta to do it even in private games and then post a "report" when finished--like a study with the results--you might get some notice. Otherwise I'd say, "The devs have day jobs" and aren't going to be able to follow a daily blow-by-blow. Primarily, I think you would really have to do a very good presentation to get their real attention but I do think it's possible.
I also remember when TSOP started. I made sure to give lots of cheerleading kudo posts on that thread because I could see some real work being done and it was at the time when half the old-hand posts were, "Sins is dead"..."All the good OL players are gone"..."Time to go play Halo" (or whatever).
TSOP impacted the devs and I am sure had some effect on their decision to bring out Rebellion--but Major Stress whipped that pony solo for a bit before other riders came in. He done good. It could happen again.
@Darvin
I said Vasari 'cause that's the faction I hear all the gripes about. Hands down their colony and scout frigates are the most potentially productive. Though I actually likethe TEC frigate. Those plucky pilots zooming in and EVAing explosives onto structures just sounds so darn SEAL/SAS. I know the Advent is Hp heavy--what changes would you suggest just per the scouts? I'm interested if ya wanna respond.
Good thread so far all. I like reading here. Please mail me money...credit cards accepted.
Okay, my opinion on scouts is somewhat contentious. I believe the scout nerf in 1.19 wasn't for the best, and their damage should have never been lowered. Instead, the Advent scout needed a significant reduction to its durability. Something like 300 hull (from 400), shield to 350 (from 425) and armor reduced to 1 from 2. This would still leave it the most durable scout overall. I've always held that the TEC and Vasari scouts were fine back then.
I agree with Darvin's numbers...tested them and was pleased with the results however it should be noted that was concurrent with other changes, mainly a relative weakening of LRFs via the damage tables...
It simply is not a good idea to weaken the Advent scout without some change to LRFs...Advent is seriously crutching on the seeker for its early game...either LRFs in general need to be of less importance or Illuminators need a buff...
The ideal situation would be a nerf to the seeker and a buff to the illuminator (preferably more frontal damage)...but you really shouldn't have one change without the other, that could lead to a seriously UP or OP Advent early game...they already have the best LF, flak, and HC, it's just that LRFs are so damn important, to be crippled there is enough to cripple the entire faction...
Keep in mind I was also arguing for a reversal of the 1.19 damage nerf. So Advent scouts would be less durable than they are now, but deal more damage than they do now. More punch, less staying power. In terms of raw combat metrics, it's a nerf, but for key strategic roles it's actually a buff that would make Advent very competitive in the opening game.
The goal is to get the scout to a point at which it can very quickly put a dent in LRF numbers, but leave it fragile enough that it'll get whittled down by flaks and picked off by fighters. I think the 1.18 TEC and Vasari scouts were already there, and the only change necessary was getting the durability of the Advent scout into line.
A lot of people are happy to dance on the grave of scout tactics, but honestly I think they brought far more diverse tactics to the early-game and it was strictly the Advent Seeker and Illuminator followup that was the problem.
Illuminator needs a buff in any case.
I guess I just intuitively have a problem with scouts having serious combat roles...I'd rather see, for example, fighters be the go-to counter against LRFs instead of scouts (or flak)...
This is partially why I also don't want the scouts to do more damage...as far as I'm concerned, LFs should be the counter to things like siege frigates, ogrovs, and constructors, not scouts....
Unfortunately, LFs can't have a big buff to light armor because then they'd be in a weird relationship with LRFs (though maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing, considering LRF vs. LF is the hardest counter in the game)...
From a modding perspective, what I really want is another armor type to add to the damage tables...I do agree that having 4 combat frigates in the early game is far more interesting than having only 3...I just am not comfortable with scouts being that 4th combat ship....hopefully corvettes will fix that...
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
