Game Balance and Version

I play single player so apparently my opinion means very little to some, however I will post my thoughts. In the recent version of Sins 1.16 and Entrenchment 1.02 a build rate penalty was implimented to stikecraft and a bit of a buff added to flak range and power. Many feel the buff to flak is good and was needed. However fighters are the hard counter to LRMs and because of the combination of buff to flak and build rate penalty to strikecraft it makes it possible to focus on building LRMs if you protect them with about 5 flak or about one flak per carrier -1. So we seem to have lost the hard counter to LRMs in version 1.16 of Sins and 1.02 Entrenchment because the build rate penalty which seems to be a very strong nerf to fighters. To me the penalty does not seem to be that bad to bombers but I've been wondering what others think about that.

Thanks for you time.

 

Edit: The build rate penalty is in Entrenchment 1.02 only and is not in 1.16 Sins. Sorry about my mistake above.

Entrechment v1.02

There are many threads already about the Marza's missile barrage being OP. It would be great if you guys could give MB a maximum number of targets.

Also I feel that Light Frigates (Cobalts/Disciple/Ravastra) are almost useless. Maybe dropping the number of command points by 1 would make them more acceptable. Think about it, Javelis LRM Frigates take only 4 Supply points but a Cobalt takes 5 ???. Maybe reversing this would make more sense.

TEC Cobalt: decreased to 4 Supply Points
TEC Javelis: increased to 5 Supply Points

Advents Disciple: decreased to 3 Supply Points
Advent Illuminator: increased to 7 Supply Points

Vasari Ravastra: decreased to 6 Supply Points
Vasari Kanrak: increased to 7 Supply Points

Thank You!

The only real balance issue currently resided in entrenchment 1.02 were we are right back were sins 1.04 was. That being LRFs spams as the only viable strategy.

The problem is simple. Carriers were over nerfed and thus LRF are left to run rampant and unchecked. In 1.01 entrenchment balance was near perfect. Every ship in the game has it's purpose and role to play in the battle and creating multiple fleets and giving each type of ship different targets was primordial to achieving victory. Now it's grope a bunch of LRFs and pray you got more firepower then your enemy.

Thus the build penalty on carriers needs to be removed. Should after the removal of the penalty Carriers and strike craft are to powerful 1 of the 2 should be done in small increments until we reach a nice stable point. Those 2 things are to either increase by 5% the damage flak deals against SC. OR increase by increment of 5% the build penalty on carriers but not booth at the same time. This is what happen in 1.02 entrenchment. Flak got the buff that they needed but at the same time you slapped a hard nerf on carriers. Effectively taking them out of the equation of early game balance. To re-balance the carriers need to be reintroduced into the equation.

When 1.01entrenchment was out they were threads about carriers being OPed but all the major forces stated that the weakness of flak was the cause. Flak got the buff it needed but carriers got the nerf bat and it broke the game. Can't go buff something in one directing and nerf the thing it's countering in the other. That was IMO your online mistake with 1.02 Entrenchment balance.

PERSONAL NOTE: In 1.01 entrenchment I added pages to my SINS strategy book. In 1.02 I tore all those pages out again. To me that tells me we have taken a step in the wrong direction. This wrong step is solely base on the over nerf of carriers.

Dargoon999 brings up and interesting point with supply cost.

I do not believe LFs to being underpowered since i had many powerful strategies with them in 1.01 entrenchment. How ever his idea and proposal is very much interesting. IT should definitely be considered. However their AI could be improved. When you tell them to attake enemies witch are movign the cobalts rush into range fire anf stop, then when their ready to fire again rush back into range and repeat. This causses the couter LF to carrier to be lest effective then what they could be. IF their AI could be tweaked so that the would chase get into range fire and maintaing their range they would do their job better. And that would not requiere buffing them.


For the Marza's MB I do not agree that it needs a nerf of any sort as proposed in the Nerf the Marza thread. What it does need it to be more clear. Right now with default graphics you can barely tell the MArza is using MB thus making it hard and almost impossible to react to it in time to stop it from wiping out large fleets. So you need the Marza to clearly show it is using MB so people can react to it. TEC can stop it via the Akkan or prevent it via the Dunov. Advent can stop it via the Radiance and Revelation, can tank it Via the Progenitor + Guardians and prevent it via the radiance. Vasary can only stop it via the Antorak. They can also tank it but it's very difficult. For the Vasary to make life easier I would recommend swiping Gravity Warhead from the Evacuator and Phase out hull from the Antorak. This would IMO give vasari the tool to cope with MB. Although many did not like this idea to much. Some suggested making Gravity Warhead interrupt abilities but that would only make the Evacuator even more powerful witch it does not need to be.

But honestly for capital ships a lot of them need some buff and some need some toning down. How ever capitals aren't and should be the priority they do work as they are even thou they can be flimsy on points. They should all be looked at carefully in a CAPITOL ship only Balance patch.

Personal Changes I believe should be made are:

Also a small problem I noticed was the imbalance in the amount of AM and AM regeneration on the carriers. As it stand in 1.02 entrenchment TEC and Vasary Carriers will run out of AM very quickly even with the 75% build penalty while the Advent Drone host will never run out of AM. After a look in the file with a friend a while ago we found out that TEC Vasary carrier had only 0.5 AM recharge while Advent carrier had 4.5. This small issue should be addressed.

Vasary Fighters should not have phase missile weapons. Their primary target bombers do not have shield and the already have a boost against their shielded targets. From experience the phase missiles only encourage to build only fighters since the chance to bypass shields means they cause more damage to none intended targets such as Capitals. You should rather give them the same weapon as the Vasary light frigates to encourage diversification  bit more.


Other then that IT seems fine. Although I am sure after ships are fixed problems like 4 SB at a star might arise. But that's to be seen in the future.

If I have missed anythign I will be sure to add it here.

Good Day.

Entrenchment v1.02

One more thing I'd like to add, dropping the supply points of Siege Frigates from 14 to 10 is necessary. They take way too much supply points, they are easy to destroy (even more so in Entrenchment with all the new defensive upgrades) and they are highly specialized. I cannot stress this enough, this is my strongest recommendation.

I support this as well the supply cost of seiges frigates also needs to go down.

Ent 1.02 0 subverters don't get used as they blow up before they use their ability/use it more then once... (fighters)

Also fighters are useless - flak kill them sooo quickly and they don't come back due to nerf on rebuild rate

Entrenchment v1.02

I don't think supply is entirely the issue. The issue is application. Since the penalty on carriers, flak have become weapon of choice against them, leaving LF with no real application early game, and allowing LRF more power as they become the destroyers of the carriers themselves. A fleet of carriers and light frigates should be a match for a fleet of LRMs and flaks right? But currently its no contest. Before carriers had a build penalty only when under attack, and i think it was only %50. Now they get penalized if there are enemies in the same gravwell, which is ok, but the penalty now is %75. I think thats a bit much. I don't think that it's a step in the wrong direction (as now flaks have a more prominent role in the fleet) but I do think its an over step in the right direction. Maybe cut it back to %50 in the next patch. I understand how tricky balancing is, especially in this game with its multitude of counters hard and soft, but with small tweaks every patch, it will stabilize.

People should also remember though, that no matter how balanced the game is, people will still spam things, balancing only serves to discourage, its impossible to eliminate.

I agree with this, perhaps a charge up graphic before missiles start popping out thats visible from farther away, because as it stands, to counter it I have to zoom all the way in on it to see the tiny little missiles coming out in mass, and cant watch whats going on with the rest of my fleet. As for the vasari, I think distortion field should effect capital ships to a varying degree based on their level (i.e higher level, shorter effected time). This way they have a second option for interrupting channeled abilities.

Perhaps a slight increase in their firing arc would help this, making it easier to just move along side kiting carriers and continue firing rather than having to stop and turn.

My 2/3 cents are (in Entrenchment 1.02 ofc)

1) LFs are too expensive in both resources and fleet supply when compared with LRFs in terms of how many uses the unit has. }
>>> Slight reduction to their supply point requirement would be cool.

2) MB - I still think that it is not balanced, being the only thing in the game that can win it for you with one click, while countering it requires the enemy to:
- build a specific cap ship ahead of time and
- bring it to that particular battle AND
- babysit his fleet all the time to use the right ability in the right second or else his fleet goes puff AND
- of course he has to both keep that cap in range of his interrupt ability from the Marza (note MB has insane 14k range, no interrupt has such) AND
- make sure his cap is not focused and wiped out before you use MB (you don't have to do that right away to have it interrupted, do you?)
There is also a second way of countering it - it is called "RUN!!!!!11". It requires that the enemy has his eyes glued to the Marza to issue the run command ASAP, but if the Marza is decently positioned, the enemy fleet will still take at least 10 seconds worth of MB, meaning their frigs are half dead already. That's a crippling disadvantage instead of a total wipeout, great counter .
This problem is in my opinion most irritating in case of Vasari. TEC have interrupt on their colony cap, so they're almost bound to have it. Advent has interrupts on two caps. Vasari have it on the generally most useless cap ship in the game™. I like the Marauder, but let's face it - nobody uses it. It's abilities are good, but the circumstances for them to shine simply never occur. All other ships fly around doing something useful, Antorak flies around waiting for the right moment to be able to do something useful.
>>> give MB a target limit or somehow change it to scale your fleet.

3) Cap ship balance.
95% Vasari games start off with an EGG, 80% of them see the first egg followed by a second one to form a BALLmada. Colonize+Grav Warhead+DISSASSEMBLER+drain planet = no other Vasari cap can beat that. If for some reason someone builds another cap, it is the Vulkoras, so that he can kill planets and SBs fast. Antorak is almost never a better choice than an EGG or a Vulk, even if you already have 3 eggs/vulks.
TEC - a little better, but still Marza and Akkan dominate the field.
Advent - actually have a decent array of abilities around all their ships. If any faction is fine here, it is Advent IMO.
>>> tweak abilities a bit to make all of them a viable choice. You've seen a zillion threads on it so I wont copy paste the ideas.

I'm going to avoid making this another mile long debate over MB, but I personally do not think its overpowered. I've seen it overcome with striking results too many times (my own MB with a superior fleet got beat by 40+ hoshis last night, MB'd the little bastards 3 times before giving up and retreating).

Just wanted to state the opposing opinion that MB is fine the way it is.

That does not mean that it is balanced or not over-powered.

Anyway, light frigates should cost less fleet supply considering that fact that that they have fewer uses then long-range frigates.

Subverters were overnerfed so that Vasari get no good support cruisers (overseers are decent though) and the Maruader needs a buff.

Why not boost Subversion to disable all enemy SBs in the grav-well for a few seconds? This would make assualt easier for Vasari and make the offensive Orkulus more survivable before it has its upgrades.

I play the latest version btw.

 

 

For 1.16 / 1.02

Agree that carrier build penalty for hostiles in gravwell is a bit high.

Disagree that LF's are too weak  -- tougher carriers means more necessity to have LF's.

Agree that Marza could use a target cap for Missile Barrage...even if it is 30 targets or something...

Agree that Subverters were overnerfed in 1.1

 

Sins v1.16

The worst problem is Missile Barrage:

- it is not rational that the Marza crew should be able to work so hard as to fire an infinite number of missiles
- the area affected is huge, if Missile Barrage saturated a small area there would be more skill involved, the ability was surely intended for use against tight formations, rather than to destroy tight and loose formations equally?
- offline, Missile Barrage is far too effective against the AI and planetary defences, even when these are not concentrated, and neither the AI nor planetary defences have any chance to stop it
- the ability is far out of line with the other TEC Level 6 abilities, making the Marza the only competitive TEC strategy
- online, having one monster capital that has to be nursed to Level 6 is not a happy method of achieving balance between the factions, and enhances early game rushing problems

The other infinite target abilities have far more restricted areas of effect.  I'd suggest that like gravity warhead or flak burst the missiles should saturate a smaller area rather than having individual targets (multi-warheads?), and there would be an area radius around a target (4000?).  A modified version of the flak burst graphics could then show it in operation.  If the target went beyond missile range the barrage would cease entirely.  This would make the use more skillful, and allow more of non-concentrated planetary defences to survive.  If there is just a limit with a target cap, the effect on planet defences will still be too great with any viable cap-  even as few as 16 targets would still mean the destruction of 16 structures.

(Also, when I made a comparison with the other capital ship abilities I noted that the Dunov's Magnetize has a target cap as to how many strikecraft can be killed, which doesn't seem appropriate for an area effect ability?)

The proposed change to the supply costs of LF and LRM seems plausible (missiles/high damage ships should need more logistics support), and would help greatly with early game rushes- as was pointed out, turrets are only effective against short ranged ships. If the AI of the LF allow them to fire while moving this would help too (firing arc?).

With Carriers I've always wondered why the strikecraft weren't left behind if they were undocked before a jump (rather than being rapid-docked), I would have considered that this would make the use of carriers more skillful and might counter 'kiting'?  If the LF/LRM supply is altered I wouldn't change the strikecraft build penalty, as this allows a much-needed boost to the underused Sova.

The Egg and Mothership have powerful combat abilities compared to the Akkan, the Egg is too deadly too early to other capitals for a colony ship, and the Motherships are more integral to battle plans.  If Nano was exchanged with Subversion the Antorak would become a more useful raider and the early capital colony rush prevented.  If Malice were exchanged with Clairvoyance the Mothership would only have one strong combat ability, rather than two.

All the high-tech support cruisers seem underpowered, and are less used in the game. Their abilities are close ranged but the ships have no ability to withstand close ranged combat.  The Cielo just seems to enhance brute combat offensive abilities at the time that the TEC forces desperately need the option of a high tech type defence, which could compensate for the adjustment to Missile Barrage.  The Subverter could be somewhat restored.  If the Cielo develops a defence against beams both the Domina and Subverter could also add a long range defence to their powers- they're all expensive late-tech ships.

Antoher way to improve MB is to reduce the damage from 150 per wave to 100 but increase the number of waves from 20 to 30. This gives it the same power only it spreads it out more over time giving people a betetr chance to react to it.

 

I agree with Cykur on these points.

Huh, didn't know that there were balance differences on basic units between entrenchment and vanilla.

I just got entrenchment, so I've only played vanilla online.

Honestly, I'm overally fairly happy with everything and I feel that Sins is the best/most well balanced multiplayer game I've ever played...except for MB.

I don't want to rehash everything that has already been said, but I would like to pull in something from the "nerf the marza" thread:

The post has been up for a few days and replied to, but I've yet to hear any responses on how to prevent my counters from becoming totally useless if a marza player uses this strategy.

Bottom line, while a mb can definitely be countered it takes ridiculous measures to do so. The fact that a nerf is continually resugested shows that something needs to be done.

I've heard numerous great ideas on it:

• Restrict it's arc to a frontal cone
• Significantly reduce the range (I'm fine with faster waves on this front)
  
• Target cap

I'm up for anything that cuts it's ability to indiscriminately wipe out/cripple an entire fleet/planetary system (the range is as big as a damn planet for heaven sakes). And I certainly don't buy the argument that the TEC NEEDS it to be that powerful. I've not only seen others play extremely competently without MB, but I've done so several times myself.

And as someone had said in the nerf thread, if the TEC in fact does need MB as it is to remain competitive, then there are balance problems elsewhere that need to be addressed, but MB certainly needs to be adjusted.

Besides, every other race has to deal with target caps for their major damage dealers (either implicitly with smaller ranges or explicitly with target caps) so there's no reason that a TEC shoud get special treatment.

This is definitely the case with the Vasari.  A skirmisher costs a whopping 7 fleet supply points.

One of the things I have a problem w/ is that the TEC missiles go WAY TOO SLOW in Entrenchment V. 1.02 (it's probably like this in other versions, but I notice it the most here as Illum's beams can get off 2-3 shots before my LRM missiles hit). Other than that the MB does NOT need to be changed (All the TEC REALLY has is MB, Kodiaks and Hoshikos for our OP, Advent have Aeria's, Illums, Guardians, and Destra's, Vasari have the Kostura, Phase Stabilizer, Phase Missiles, and the Space Egg), and and increase in Capital carrier power(i.e. Sova's Heavy Fighters affecting ALL friendly strike craft in the grav. well, Skirantra's Scramble Bombers should last longer, and Halycon's Adept Drone Anima should take more of an effect.

 

(^) Koda0

 

P.S. I also think that the Capital Carriers should have a higher max. squadron limit than 6.

Weapons damage targets instantly. Missile speed is irrelevent unless you want more realism. I think that its fine the way it is.

If TEC need such a rediculously powerful ability then that can only mean that balance between TEC and the other races is badly screwed up.

Agreed.

As I said before, it may be viable that the Maruader's Subversion ability could be changed to disable all enemy SBs in the grav-well for a few seconds to give the offensive Orkulus a temporary advantage. Would this work?

i have to say i dont like the hard counter system i.e. Scissors, Paper, Rock

i think making Sins battles more tactical by making flanking manouvers etc viable and desirable would definitly be a plus.

it may be too hard to accomplish since i guess the game is sorta hard coded with the current system

but if its possible, thats my vote. Hard counters sure, but make it that superior tactics can and will overcome simply spamming counters

I prefer v 1.05. I think there's been so much nerfing and buffing going on that the whole thing's gone cockeyed...

Entrenchment v1.02:

Missile Barrage:  Leave it alone it's fine (yes a graphical addition to make it more noticeable would be a great idea, but the damage etc is fine).

Light Frigates:  Need a boost so they are worthwhile, which at the moment they are not.  Less fleet cost, and perhaps a bit more turning radius would make them usable. 

RM

An idea for carriers:

Remove the strikecraft build penalty of -%75 while squadrons are DOCKED. Thoughts?

Entrenchment version 1.02

Sins 1.16 / Entrenchment 1.02

I like the Strikecraft build penalties. They make you want to keep your SC alive instead of just sacrificing them to knock out the enemy's LRF's and then retreat carriers and repeat.

That said, Flak now kill Fighters so fast you can't really use them at all against someone who can micro his Flak in the right spot.

I would like to see the SC build penalties remain but Flak firepower cut down against Fighters, or overall.

Marza's Missile Barrage is too strong. Other lvl 6 cap abilities don't really compare and it's a useful cap even without MB. Missile Barrage needs a target cap / range reduction and a more visible graphical representation.

(1.02/ 1.16)

let me just say this about missile barrage:

I don't think it's too powerful, because it is unstoppable. it isn't, though you have to plan against it (bring interrputors, am destroyers, ability blockers) and look out for it. it is too powerful, because it has got so much more potential effect than most ( if not all) the other capitals' ultimates. even if the barrage lasts only for a few seconds that is still a huge amount of damage if you managed to hit enough targets. what ability can compare to that? taking over one single ship? meh. creating clones of 3 or so heavy cruisers? meh. a column that does quite nice damage, but not to very many targets? not bad, but often too hard to get enough targets in a row. planet suck? nice, but does it really hurt THAT much? it won't outright kill a planet and the resource gain won't make you rich. and even a dead planet would less painful usually than a big chunk of fleet destroyed. hysteria? same. armistice? very useful in some specialised situations, useless a lot of other times. finest hour? keeps your ship nicely alive and boost dmg potential, but dmg is nothing compared to a few secs of MB. portable phase gate? ok, pretty powerful, but also not so much in all situations. plus, by the time you'd normally have a lvl 6 marauder, you might even have kostura, which gets you the same effect and some and less complicated.

I could go on, but I think my point is fairly clear. it is way too easy to do more harm with MB than with any other capship ability and this is what makes it unbalanced for me. at least this is my albeit uneducated opinion.

as for the lrm issue: could we please get a quick confirmation whether the penalty is indeed 25% (as I claim) or 75% (as most people I see here claim). not that it changes anything, as flaks apparently wipe the floor with carriers, be it 25% or 75%. but I guess for the sake of knowing what exactly to call for, a little precision might be in order. I still hold that if light carriers under attack display 38% and those not under attack display 75%, the figure cannot be the penalty, but the production rate.

maybe the 'under attack' rate could go up to 75% from 50% now, while the other rate is taken out. it should still keep flaks fairly effective at battling fighters, but to really shut them down for good, you'd need to get close and take the carriers themselves out.

Yes, the penalty for light carriers is only a -25% to squadron build rate when enemy ships are in the gravity well. That build rate goes all the way down from 75% to 38% when directly under attack.