Where the vasari starbases would be the fastest (we'll call this 100% starbase movement speed)
Advent starbases would move at 50-75% of this speed,
and TEC starbases would move at 25-35% of this speed.
This would ensure that all starbases are useful in defending their gravity well. This also adds to the game's skill requirement as all the main defenses in the game aren't quite so static.
This would also be a way to start to balance the vasari rebel's phase jumping starbases so that the vasari rebel tactical advantage isn't so huge when they use their starbases in a gravity well.
I always considered vasari starbases to be the deathstar, with a lot of headgear!
the devs should make a surprise 4 us ! right at the release make just 1 more CGI trailer featuring the vasari sb as ignus dei intended it!or just another cgi trailer - would be cool
and eventually if we get to the age where soase2 lol 3 or 4 would look similar to the cgi that would be mind blowing!
I think Advent and Tech should have phase missiles too..yeah..that will do it.
@ sinperium
Ah the thing is that phase missiles as they are fit the game perfectly. I don't want the advent and the TEC to get them because it isn't how the races are designed. If you could provide a solid reason as to why then someone might actually care. Without a reason, your words are empty.
Oh and I got (paraphrasing your words)your superior intellectual form of humor, sarcasm. Wow, I think I just used sarcasm, I must be a genius like Sinperium. OMG! I can literally feel the neurons starting to divide again, I've solved the riddle of the neuron! Time to patent that shit and make me some money, after all what's having brains without having the cash to flaunt as well?
-waves bulging wallet at sinperium
GET ME SOME COFFEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!
Yeah, you don't want me using sarcasm. You just might get burned. By my hot cup of coffee.
quar is talking about himself Methinks...wow quar your kinda ADORABLE!
I am your father. Search your feelings son...you know it to be true.
Sareth: You argue with reason and seem to have thought about this so I have to ask: Why the personal attacks? I mean even if we ignore the "it's rude and destructive" angle, if your hope is to have the devs listen to you, why insult them?
I mean isn't going "THE DEVS HATE THEIR GAME AND ARE TRYING TO GET EVERYONE TO STOP PLAYING SO THEY CAN GO DO SOMETHING ELSE!!!!!111111oneoneone" like the best way to get any devs checking out the forum to ignore you?
Don't get me wrong - I agree that devs in general often do really odd things, but I really doubt calling them names is the way to go instead of arguing how stuff should be done diffrently..
To the actual idea: Nnnno. The races are waaaay too homogenous as they are. I have never played multiplayer (or well I did once and got killed in like 2 mins...), but how would having the enemy jump in some ogrovs instead change things? I mean I admit I haven't done the math, but I'm pretty sure you can get a lot of ogrovs for the price of a starbase able to take out a supported starbase and it's not like the starbase can bomb the planet either? Naturally the starbase would then be good for keeping the newly conquered planet, but then again the ogrovs would be able to jump to the next well..
For the record I'm a vasari player and I'd be all for giving them an antistructure cruiser and taking out the ability to build a starbase in a hostile well at all. As I understand, TEC are supposed to outproduce, Advent outsynergice and Vasari is supposed to outmanouver. How the hell does having the vasari stop to build a starbase before attacking fit into that?
Moving homing red button!
oh lawl
If that was the case why give the other factions moving starbases. They don't fit their races designs. I don't see any form of propulsion on the Advent or TEC SBs. It works for Vasari with that green circle thing.
I do agree with OP, I don't think its a troll post at all and feel he has a point. Maybe instead of giving TEC and Advent free movement with the SBs maybe put them in a orbit that rotates about the said planet. You could make a tactical choice to have it short-medium-Long range Orbit depending on your stratagy you want to employ.
I like the idea that Vasari have a mobile and slow Starbase. I think that when TEC and Advent players set up their orbital facilities correctly and place the starbase in a defensive position relative to the existing orbital structures, their defensive capabilities are adequate. It is my opinion that the Vasari starbase mobility is both a strength and a liability. The starbase can be kited around by a micromanager while a strike group hits targets within a gravity well. When going against AI and non macro-managing players, micromanagement of battles against the starbase can help to isolate and weaken the defensive presence of the starbase.
Saber
It's okay Sinperium, at least Qu4r and I knew you were trolling...
I can troll him because I am his father.
thank you for reading, and yes I agree orbits are another solution to the issue, and they are also interesting because there is movement. The thing is there is no reason to have a lack of control in this movement department, ships have to have thrust to keep them in orbit in the first place, so why not have a starbase under your control? More control means you have more options to bring in player skill. Also, being able to move your starbase is fun, you spent a lot on it, so it should have utility.
Yep your key word is Adequate. The vasari starbase is an AMAZING GAME WINNER. All the other racial defenses are adequate, not even good, at what they do. I'm proposing an upgrade from adequate to good. The vasari still have their AMAZING GAME WINNER status. Everybody wins.
Still waiting on that coffee, dad.
@ Toivoton
Well i'm going to respond to your post after the words
Yes ogrovs are threatened by a vasari starbase closing on them and they may have to retreat once it starts bearing down on them. That makes sense, and should be true of all starbases. The defensive capability of the starbase would actually be worth the investment. As it stands, the other two racial starbases are just punching bags with little to no utility, because they can't move. Oh I might add that they are expensive punching bags(therefore they have little to no real reason to be built, and usually aren't until late game in multiplayer matches).
As for your vasari antistructure cruiser, they don't need one. the vasari have a simple tactic with their starbase that allows them to kill all support structures without risk.
step 1: build starbase in enemy gravity well.
step 2: upgrade starbase health and weaponry
step 3: move starbase into middle of enemy defense and kill all structures.
step 4:once all structures are destroyed, the vasari starbase can retreat and receive healing from a few overseers to face the opposing starbase/fleet.
Since the vasari starbase is such an awesome TANK, its going to survive easily in most cases. This is an easy strategy that takes little to no skill to execute.
Also, Vasari don't need a antistructure cruiser because They have strong phase missiles(kill anything quickly), excellent capitals(that spawn free antistructure ships), and a starbase that is very strong and able to beat any other starbase 1v1(with no support on either side).
The important aspect is that since the vasari starbases are stronger, they have far less RISK moving into an enemy formation to do this strategy. Think for a second about how a moving advent/TEC starbase would fare in similar situation(assuming they could move).
The advent starbase would be built at the edge of the gravity well. It would either strike buildings at a range and whittle them down very slowly with meteor (and yes it will be VERY slow). Or it could engage point blank and have a greater risk of destruction because 1) its really slow, so if an enemy fleet warps in it will have a far slower "reaction" time then a vasari starbase will have, 2) It isn't as resilient as the vasari starbase, 3) it isn't designed to be effective against buildings and lacks the weaponry to be so. The advent starbase would be feared because of its ability to entrap an enemy fleet and hit it with meteor.
Looks to me like the vasari starbase is a very effective building destroyer, with very minimal risk (aside from the initial economic investment).
The advent and TEC starbases aren't meant to brawl like this, the TEC starbase would incur the greatest risk because it is so slow, yet at the same time it could go in and blow an enemy fortification up with big red button. I personally would find this quite interesting, funny, and quite FUN(its kinda like, if you allow a TEC starbase to be built in your gravity well, it would be your own fault lol). Something about moving destructive starbase bombs seems to fit the TEC economic strategy. Nothing could clear a defensive emplacement faster. I'm sure the vasari would be jealous. Also, surprisingly enough, given the other races strengths, I don't find this ability to be overpowered, yet. Would it be fun? yes. Very fun for all races, actually. It sure would be a nice endgame bang to deal with a dug in advent/vasari defense. If you could get your starbase built in the enemy gravity well though. And thats a big IF when you consider the power of endgame fleets. Ogrovs would still have their use, and the TEC would be a bunch of bunker busters. This fits with thier "pure power" approach to things.
Giving yet another reason for the TEC loyalists to use their cheap, effective starbases. The only thing i would recommend is that the TEC red button blast radius be reduced to 75% of where it was before it was buffed in rebellion beta.
Also, if TEC loyalist starbases could move, they would actually have the strongest defense, instead of everyone pretending that they do, but then playing other races because the TEC loyalist defense sucks.
Sareth, bad idea. Very bad.
@howthe
not really
Like I discussed with Volt, You require actual reasons to state your case or your words aren't worth anything. I've stated mine, what are yours?
I think enough reasons have already been stated...
You just can't argue against #1...maybe it's not a unique aspect you care about but it is part of the Vasari theme of mobility (something the other factions do not and should not have)...
You can suggest compensatory balance changes to deal with #2 and #3 but at the end of the day, even if you make things balanced (and that's a big if) you will have reduced the faction diversity, and I just don't find that acceptable...
If you were making a mod (where perhaps the factions were made more diversified in other ways), that'd be one thing...but you are proposing a balance change that reduces diversity, is unnecessary, and would be incredibly exhaustive to properly compensate for in other areas...
I'm not saying that having all SBs move is awful in its ownright, a heavily modded gameplay could prove it better...but for Vanilla sins, I don't think it should be done...
Remember, the Idea stated in this thread is one I've had since Entrenchment first came out, its not like i haven't thought about it for a few years now.
1. The fact that the vasari might "need" this as a way to have diversity means that the developers haven't had enough good ideas to ensure that the vasari are unique enough. I honestly think they have a lot of great ideas that make them unique, and that the developers have done an excellent job in making the vasari feel unique. To give other factions movement capability won't take away anything from the vasari. As i've said before, the vasari would have the FASTEST starbase, ensuring that their strategy would go unchanged, while other races strategies would change, for the better of all players. It would only serve to help other factions deal with vasari moving starbases(and the vasari starbase + titan combo!!!), and it would add a lot more SKILL to the game. Vasari starbases would still have the upper hand in engaging the enemy in thier own turf because they move faster. Its not that they are being nerfed, its that other races are being buffed. They would still strategically be able to do many of the traditional strategies they had using starbases to great effect. The only difference now is that their fleet could be put at risk because an opposing starbase could engage that fleet. The main difference is that they would require more skill to play effectively, and that they wouldn't be quite so "i built a starbase at your homeworld so I win". If you start to tally the diversity the vasari have in strategy, you will come to realize that they actually have the most strategic diversity of any faction, bar none. Thats what I care about, strategic diversity. That is what increases the replayability of this game, that is what makes this game fun. I also like to call it having "more paths to victory".
2. They don't have weak ships, they have high price tags. Vasari ships are the best in the game. They offset this high price tag by being able to get neutrals. vasari are balanced via luck, how many neutrals are nearby? Really this is more of a player preference, how much luck do you want to play a factor in your strategy? ANY vasari player can overcome a lack of luck at any point in time and build an early starbase to ensure that they survive an early rush. This has and always will be the case. Yes, early vasari can defend against corvette rushes effectively because their vasari starbase cuts them apart with their pulse cannons. You don't engage these with corvettes...
3. Considering all the other AoE capabilities in the game, the advent meteor and the TEC red button aren't that "unique and amazing" anymore, AoE abilities are now relatively common(i worry more about fleet survivability). I agree that these two abilities would need a rebalance, yet at the same time no faction would be overpowered by having moving starbases. The balance changes you think are so difficult are really more of a range/damage/cooldown/cost modification, something that would take a developer 15-20 minutes to change. After all you are just changing numerical values, you aren't adding in a seperate reasearch or adding anything that is very time intensive.
Honestly, the beta as it stands needs to be "heavily modded" or the game won't be balanced in the slightest bit.
If and when that mod you suggest gets made, and the developers use steamworks so that we can have quick downloads online, i'll never play a regular game of vanilla sins again, because we (the multiplayer community) would be free of the yoke of poor development decisions. Then you and I really could prove together in a few games about how precisely correct I was in this discussion. I look forward to it.
I won't argue that the Vasari depend solely on moving SBs to be unique...I do however think it is an important part of that uniqueness...
Giving all factions moving SBs would be like giving all factions culture upgrades or factories on their SBs...sure, it could be balanced and made to work but it would take out some of the conceptual diversity each faction has...
I contest this statement, and would argue on both a per cost and per fleet supply basis, Advent and TEC ships will crush Vasari...the only exception to this is either A) fights with overwhelming amounts of bombers or specifically FFing on a high priority target with high shield mitigation...in fleet v. fleet battles, Vasari are not in the advantage without economic advantages or capital ships/titans....
Yes Vasari have neutrals, but they also are unable to get trade or culture up as early and as you pointed out, their ships are expensive...Vasari are weak in early fleet vs. TEC and especially Advent...they are also weak in early economy vs. TEC...getting SBs earlier and being able to use a moving assualt SB is key to Vasari's early power...if all three factions could do this, Vasari would be missing out on a key advantage...
The damage tables are "just numerical values" and after 4 years the devs still haven't gotten it right...such changes are easy to implement, but determining what those changes should be and then testing them takes a lot of time...
In any case, the point still stands that Advent/TEC SBs are much more powerful when fully developed and properly supported...the Vasari SB is just a blunt weapon of lots of DPS and HP that excels early game and falters late game...it is fundamentally different in its power and depends on its mobility to compete with the power of the other two SBs...
So true...I can't tolerate vanilla diplomacy now, and rebellion...well...until June 12th...
Mobile starbases is something way too OP and difficult for players to manage -so it's in 7DS.
Well, i you look at this thread closely, you will find out that there are only 2-3 people, who agreed with your idea, the rest were against it. So perhaps it is not really that good idea, for reasons stated by Seleuceia for example...
BTW, you say that the Vasari have this "diversity", cause the devs could not come with nothing better... what exactly would be better? I believe the Vasari are very well designed with the scope on the mobility and moving starbase absolutely fits their theme. Anyway, i would like to hear, how would you design the races.
I cant help it, but you really seem "bitter" to me, cause you like for some reason Advent, or you want to like them to be more exact, but sadly for you, its the Vasari, who get all the cool toys... hence threads like this. Maybe, instead of trying to take away something of the Vasari uniqueness you may try to come with something fresh and unique for Advent, which would boost them to your satisfaction, or make them better/more fun to play. Or you may finally admit (to yourself), its really the Vasari stuff, what excites you the most (mobility over culture anyday FTW) and forget Advent, start playing Vasari, be cool with it. It would really be nothing new.
Should have saw it when I argued against him when he thought that having a land battles on planets with troops that you can control would be a good idea.
These ideas are screw over current gameplay mechanics and design too much to even be viable choices from a balance and lore perspective.
Also, when you think about it sareth despite having the idea since entrenchment; I havn't seen this change. The devs probably had some sense in their overall vision that this would be a bad idea despite what the current balance is now.
Guys, its not like the developer's vision is this magical conglomeration of mysterious things that we have no possibility of understanding. Its actually quite noticeable and quite simple.
@ timmaigh
Like I'm honestly weak enough to give up. To give you a clue, i'll continue playing a sins match with 10 ships and 1 colonizer, and i'll do so for HOURS, until I lose every frakken ship, every planet. What makes you think that I'll treat the forums any different? Especially considering that people PUBLICLY accepting/not accepting my words is irrelevant, the types of responses herein aren't actually a fair measure of what people think about the post(most people are going to feel more compelled to type a negative response based upon the inherent bias that exists in these online forums). I don't assume or imply(as you do) that people who read these forums follow the opinions of those posting, blindly. I for one try to explain things to let those who read and don't participate have a better understanding of exactly what it is that i'm talking about.
The simple reason is, that the developers should use their brains to give the advent and TEC some cooler toys to work with. If they have difficulty, perhaps they should look to their community, which is bursting with ideas. Hmm and the vasari stuff isn't exciting for me to play, I find them dull and heavily reliant on really cheap easy tactics, and their tactics lend themselves heavily to skill, which is to say that persons of equal skill level would lose to the vasari, because they allow a players skill to be used in more unique ways(one of these is vasari starbase movement). What I still find wrong with the Advent and TEC are that they have a lack of options in this area. I've stated time and again new things that would help the advent and TEC, you have just to look at my long list of postings yourself if you'd like to know more.
As for being "bitter" as you like to say, I'm really not. I'm quite forceful in my demands, and I will always be. I'm not the type that says to a perceived authority, "yes master I'll do what you want". I would have no problem telling the president of the united states to "get the fuck off my lawn". After all he's just a man who shits like everyone else, and I don't believe for one second the cult of personality bullshit. Hes got a hard job, but hes the CEO of the business of war, and therefore I consider any president to be a pile of dung, period.
I have reasons to be upset at the developers, its not some mysterious thing, explain myself quite adequately. I do what people should do with their anger, let it be known. If you keep it inside you just hurt yourself. I'm not into hurting myself emotionally, so here ya'll go. Its who I am. OMG I started talking about emotions, I must be weak! Except that i'm not. Deal with that perceived contradiction, timmaigh.
Also, how can I be upset, my girlfriend just got some ben-wa balls. Good times await.
@ rovert
Landing troops can be discussed in another thread, the one that I discussed.
Logistically, i don't see how you could take a planet and establish a population on that planet without having to land troops, as even nuclear holocaust is totally survivable via underground bunkers and the like. So naturally you are going to have to put boots on the ground to finish the job. The game simplifies this idea because its convenient for game designers to cut this corner and not have the actual simulate in a game the "boots on the ground" aspect.
The only reason I wanted this implemented was it would allow for a whole range of new content as well as make a planetary takeover that much more exciting. A colony ship may have say troops on it (as we've seen in the videos), yet those troops never lose, there is no risk, and therefore its a very poorly simulated mechanic.
If you need more understanding of this, review naval tactics during world war two about island invasion techniques. The island is similar to the "planets gravity well", and the navy attacking it is similar to the fleet. What we witness in the game is the primary orbital bombardment. The reality is that no orbital bombardment is going to kill an entire planet (anyways, who would want that planet, and defenders can just dig deeper to survive). The colonization ships provide us with the "troop landings", yet the battle is always certain, its VICTORY at this point. Always having certain victory is boring. Planets takeovers are far to simplified in every space game i've ever played, the industry as a whole is a bunch of slackers in this area.
Well the idea has even more reason to be implimented since the developers released the titans in rebellion. Starbases that cannot move are now more then ever a waste of credits. That is why i brought it up again, because overall the old arguments were far weaker against this idea.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
