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.
Ogrovos are overpowered.
Tec is very spammable race, and generaly game developed in spamm direction, when devs listened to the mob and nerfed all high-macro , high resources , high skill croud control tactiks.
It was a stupid move sice engine cant handle 8x lv 5+ fleets.
Tec is also best race, so its time to return the balance.
The solution for ogrovos is simple. increse their tactical cost x2.
[quote who="Qu4r" reply="joke="2961010"]I play Vasari.
TEC is too good to make Vasari OP.
Vasari isn't strong enough.
Advent already balanced good for Vasari supremacy.
Make TEC weak like Advent so Vasari is only good race.
Solution is simple halve TEC income so Vasari is OP again.[/quote]
The above is a joke and not a real quote.
While I agree with Qu4r that TEC is overpowered currently, I don't think the Ogrov is near the top of the list, and doubling its command point cost would toss it into the "useless" category. At very most I'd be looking at something like a speed decrease or a 15% cost increase.
If you want to deal with TEC supremacy, look at nerfing their fast trade openers and their supreme LRM. Beyond that, TEC isn't unreasonable at all. I'd go so far as to say they're actually still weak in the late-game, even with the Novalith buff. Remember that much of TEC's current late-game strength is that they get an early economic boost that lets them get ahead and stay ahead economically. Nerf their early-game, and their mid-late game will get weaker by extension.
Joke or not, this is basically what quar is wanting/suggesting. I thought it was funny though.
[_]-Greyfox
Or, you could reduce advent starfish requirements, perhaps make them be able to fire behind them so that they can kite and kill a vasari SB so they could actually be useful...
The game implimented building destruction units, yet for the longest time no one used theirs except for vasari. The advent don't use them because they suck! Any wonder as to why advent vs. vasari is an uphill battle for the advent?
Vasari get a SB to kill buildings, which doesn't take up ANY supply and doesn't cost that much considering what you get for you buck. Ogrovs truly allow the TEC to be everywhere at once, and proper use of them actually allow for some very fun strategy. Considering the late game vasari defensive strength, its a fair trade off.
Vasari SB's need to have actual counters, and if you think they are dying fast then maybe you will have to build more than just health upgrades to keep your star base alive, like the rest of the races already do. More neutrals would be nice, for all races.
I find that having more neutrals placed in between players allows for more intense games since you will always have satellite battles that are very important, while at the same time preventing the vasari from becoming too overpowered. Having more advantageous capture points on random maps would be a great boon to the game, as it would make the random universe seem more alive.
That's more phase missiles than anything. You can easily tank an Orkulus with Destras, Guardians, and a Progenitor. If it's got deflector shields that increases the challenge a little, but it's still entirely reasonable to brute force it. The problem is, this combo is so vulnerable to anything using phase missiles as to be totally non-viable against Vasari in a fleet battle.
Although I have little MP experience, wouldn't it be easy enough to have a small scout fleet to counter Ogrovs? Scouts are cheap, fast, build quickly, and do significant amounts of damage to light armor. By the time the Ogrovs have had enough time to destroy a structure (usually takes 11+ salvos - 450 damage every 20 seconds), you'll probably have destroyed or almost killed at least one Ogrov (assuming they start at full health, which shouldn't be all that likely) - and the structure kills : Ogrov deaths ratio only increases after that. A single hangar defense with fighters could also help out a great deal.
If you're against TEC and think they might use this strategy, if you're aware of the possibility and take appropriate precautions, it shouldn't be much of a danger at all. And if they build enough Ogrovs (4+?) such that a small scout fleet is insufficient to counter, they're sacrificing a significant chunk of their command points, and their fleet suffers significantly.
Yup; works like a charm.
This one doesn't. The problem is that a single hanger with two squads of fighters won't dent Ogrovs, and any more hangers will require sinking cash into tactical upgrades... not a road you want to go down. Stick with scouts; unless the enemy is throwing carriers at you, scouts are just way better than hangers for this sort of defensive role.
Everything is better than hangars.
That's part of my own beef--it's completely true. It's absurd to have assets in the game that are rarely or never used. They need to be tweaked so they are of value.
I'm thinking corvettes may fill the roll of "behind-lines security" in Rebellion but then you have the balance issue of another semi-frigate in the mix...unless they can't phase jump (which is not a bad idea).
I was thinking to use a hangar (only one, supplemented by scouts) because it's equivalent to 8 scouts in terms of firepower and doesn't take up precious supply points. It also costs significantly more resources and significantly less credits, though, and can't follow if the Ogrovs phase jump.
Of course, this assumes that you can get it up early enough for it to regenerate antimatter and fill out its strikecraft capacity.
The problem with hangars is the return-on-investment...they are extremely low on the totem pole and just too many other things to replace them with.
In real life (which admittedly isn't a direct comparison) fleets and navies secure the approach to installations but the installations have stand alone defenses capable of withstanding a "normal" attack without subtracting from fleet assets.
Planet defenses and garrisons are lopsided in balance and just need slight adjustments. The whole point is that the cost of defense installations alone is enough fleet penalty and it shouldn't require fleet logistics on top of that for basic rear area security.
So, "building fleet usable ship "X" or "Y" as a solution to rear area garrisoning isn't a desirable solution for me. Hangars are there but simply aren't made very viable and easily could be.
Then there's the aesthetic offense...an entire planetary population and world with all its surface and orbital production--capable of producing any structure or vessel known--sit helplessly while cheap, disposable enemy units park for days/weeks and casually lob shells and bombs about until the entire infrastructure is dismantled...or the entire empire's navy is recalled. Yeah...riii-ight.
Only if you're actively micromanaging them. If left to default behavior, strike craft usually net about half their potential DPS.
Beyond the point that scouts can respond to trouble in multiple gravity wells, there is the issue that hangers cannot retreat from battle. If the enemy arrives in force, your hangers become casualties. Scouts, on the other hand, can fleet and survive to fight another day. A well-managed scout mob can last you the entire game.
You really shouldn't have to micromanage basic defenses most times and again, the scout mob should be reinforcements--not something that has to be present or there's no other effective option...and, again, its a fleet cost and we still have the already present and rarely used hangar unit with no other purpose.
Simply giving some more balanced oomph to hangars solves the problem. It allows for micromanaging, augments other units present, addresses anti-ship and anti-strike needs and remains in system managing itself without providing any offensive capability or means to pursue a fleeing enemy.
In real life--in every age and in every sort of warfare--no small force behind enemy lines and cut off from reinforcements and resupply can last long.
Seriously? Well, that's pretty horrible. There goes that strategy.
Another solution would be to combine Gauss Guns and Hangars into a single multipurpose unit.
Completely agree that statics need a boost. I get that the overall focus of the game combat in SINS is on the Fleet but static defenses could really use a boost and from a realism standpoint, the current static defenses are sorely out of alignment with historic standards.
First off, weapons platforms should have a basic low damage short range anti fighter/bomber attack. At no point in history since the invention of air warfare has a static defense installation been completely without the ability to put up some kind of fight against aerial attack. Yes, bomber spam should still chew through a gauss/beam/missile platform but it is just stupid and asinine that a single squadron could eventually destroy a series of platforms if left long enough. If I have gone to the trouble and paid the expense of putting 6-8-10 platforms in a strong grouping to help protect a planet, it is ridiculous that 2 carriers could come in and take them out if I don't have the ability to bring anti fighter frigates or SC of my own.
Secondly, Hangars need to either field larger squadrons or additional squadrons. As it is, they are essentially a completely useless structure in the realm of SINS. I would personally favor having greater #'s of SC in a squadron if for no other reason to differentiate hangar squadrons from ship squadrons. When you think about it though it makes sense that a fixed airfield/hangar could put up greater #s of SC vs a fixed size ship. This could be an upgrade to hangars whereby if they are fully upgraded it would be equal to having maybe 4 squadrons for TEC/VAS and 5 for Advent instead of the current 2 or 3 respectively.
While it'd be nice for static defenses to be more useful than they are now, I could care less about realism or "historic standpoints" - I think what matters more is a good balanced game. If that means overspecialization (turrets can't defend against strikecraft), that's fine with me.
Do keep in mind that your "at no point in history" refers to planet-based combat, which would presumably be quite different from space-based combat.
If you go to the efforts of putting that many turrets up and then refuse to defend them with a couple counters to their obvious counters (fighters, that is), I'd say it's probably a flaw in your strategy rather than a flaw in the game.
I think the first thing to focus on would be the initial antimatter. At the moment, it doesn't have enough to even fill out its squads initially, and its AM regenerates at a painfully slow rate. Extra squads mean nothing if you don't have sufficient AM to build them. Hangars should start with enough AM to fill out all of their strikecraft. After that, a moderate increase in the number of squads supported (and a proportional increase in antimatter) would be great as well.
Changing hangar AM should only come with a sizeable nerf to phasic trap. Phasic trap is too strong as is and does not need to be made stronger with buffing AM on that hangar. Most vasari will not even build SC at all on their hangars so it will all be used for phasic trap.
You missed my point. With all large military installations in current world history, reasonable precautions are put into place to counter known threats. My point is that it makes little logical sense to assume that at some point in the future, sentient beings suddenly forget the lessons of past military conflict and start building things that can be 100% countered by something that is so simple to protect against.
I get your point on the standpoint of balancing the game but I still feel it is silly to make a weapons platform with no ability to counter one of the most prominent threats within its conflict universe.
You can make that argument. I would still argue that this is a game flaw and not a flaw in my strategy. My reasoning is that essentially, the game from the beginning is skewed against a turtling player. Star bases are prohibitively expensive and require high technology levels to become effective. Low level static defenses are essentially nothing more than cannon fodder to try and distract capitals from bombing planets. You are forced from the beginning especially in online MP, to devote resources to fleet which is an offensive resource rather than being able to put up a reasonable defense line. Historically speaking, its always been easier to defend territory than invade/attack it.
I guess I would just like a little more love given to us Turtling players
All of that being said, I still really enjoy this game and commend the devs for the longevity of it.
Grey you're judging Phase Traps purely from Advent perspective. For TEC they're not a problem, for another Vasari who knows what he is doing neither. Everyone knows Advent is borked and needs adjusting, but that's no reason to start crusade to kill yet another cool vasari gadget.
Advent has most problems with hangars because they have no ships that can attack and successfully kill SB directly. TEC has ogrows. And advent are weakest against vasari because of phase missiles.
I am thinking if advent telekinetic push on carrier caps get bigger range of effect and does a bit more damage to vasari strike craft.....
I don't know...TK push is a pretty damn good ability, not sure it really needs to be buffed...Advent need help but I'd rather reduce their weaknesses than accentuate their strengths...
Advent need a better LRF (and it would follow then a weaker scout ship) and need some protection from PM's, ideally an AoE like shield projection on the guardian...
Those two things alone would help advent immensely...I really don't think we want to buff excellent things like TK push...
IMO, it's the Javelis and Assailant that need to be nerfed slightly. The Illum being weak is enough to gimp the entire Advent faction militarily despite just about everything else being strong. That's screwed up.
Their economy is weak as well, which isn't helping matters.
All caps die really fast against vasari bomber spam. But I think advent is really weak here and if you micro your bombers telekinetic push becomes completely useless even to around 30 - 40 bombers. Cap will die or have to retreat very fast.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
