1. All races star bases move

NO - That's a bandaid to the problem of range. As I've said before the phase lanes need to be narrowed. This fixes the mine spam as less are needed and SB placement becomes not only useful but critical - and the vasari moveaability can actually be a bad thing - ie use a small fleet to pull the base away makign the lanes clear

2. Phase jump inhibitor built into star base. What percent should it be? Keep in mind phase jump inhibitors for planets are usually 700%

MAYBE - 350% would be fine, maybe even 200% - again fixing phase lanes would really help

3. Revamp Mines on Advent and Vasri

YES - system caps 200 for planetary systems, 100 or non planets (gas giants are planets)

4. Starbases take more money and time to construct in exchange for more firepower

YES - increase the initial cost and decrease things like the trade ports - you already researched the tech and the SB tech make it cost the same as a regular tradeport. you're already burning a slot thats enough punishment.

5. On Planet defenses (Planet to space weapons). Extremely Expensive.

???

6. Planetary Shields for starbases.

NO - already exists why waste a build slot on top of theat SB's are more useful in nutral territory in my opinion.

7. More than one starbase per gravity well

NO - you already can if you are allied or if 2 enemies are fighting it out.

8. Interplanetary Star base travel.

NO - construction ships alresay travel - if you want it build a new one.

9. Mine cap limit individual of tatical slots.

YES - 200 for planetary systems 100 for non.

10. Space Ponies

YES

true but then what would be the point? it makes that race special

1. No. Range, please.

2. Yes. 150%-250%.

3. Yes.

4. No. Upgrades should fulfill that.

5. Yes. Effective against planet bombers, but short ranged. (Not that I think it'll happen.)

6. Yes. Upgrade of the keep control ability. Not as effective as the seperate TEC structure.

7. No. One is a good limit and forces choices to be made.

8. No.

9. Yes. More for stars. Or soft cap, though runaway economies can cause mine abuse in really long games.

10. Piffle.

1. All races star bases move

Nay

STATIONARY FREAKIN' BASE

Defenses are used because they trade mobility for firepower. If you want a mobile defense, use ships.

2. Phase jump inhibitor built into star base. What percent should it be? Keep in mind phase jump inhibitors for planets are usually 700%

As an upgrade - YAY

3. Revamp Mines on Advent and Vasri

Yay - Make them costs dinero or pesos or something.

4. Starbases take more money and time to construct in exchange for more firepower

NAY - just add more upgrades

5. On Planet defenses (Planet to space weapons). Extremely Expensive.

With experimentation this could work....

6. Planetary Shields for starbases.

As an upgrade - YAY

7. More than one starbase per gravity well

Nay - There needs to be some kind of limit, 1 per grav well is really good for defenses. It keeps your ability to withstand attacks proportional to your empire size. This will keep the game moving rather than stalling at a stailmate

8. Interplanetary Star base travel.

Nay

STATIONARY FREAKIN' BASE

Defenses are used because they trade mobility for firepower. If you want a mobile defense, use ships.

9. Mine cap limit individual of tatical slots.

Nay - I'd prefer a cost 

10. Space Ponies

Nay - they aren't pink.

The allergies people have to mobile bases is fairly odd.

1- If you're going to build a large, expensive, militarily useful platform... figuring out how to make it *move* is an obvious step.  We build aircraft carriers as mobile airbases; we build armored vehicles instead of gun emplacements, unless the gun is so huge that anchoring it to the planet improves accuracy.  Mobility is central to warfare. 

Unless there's a physical or logistical reason why it can't move, or why that movement would be useless, the logical thing would be to figure out how to make it move.  Is anybody seriously arguing that it would take more resources to move a base than a maxed-out fleet?  Or that they'd rather be an obvious target for long-range toys like the TEC's superweapon, firing a projectile suitably modified with a proximity fuse?  I don't see anybody suggesting that the bases should be anchored to the planet to absorb recoil from a massive projectile weapon, or to use an ocean as a heat sink for massive sustained fire, or that they're so small that an engine wouldn't fit.  Is the argument that engines are non-scalable so that it's impossible to provide sufficient acceleration for them to ever reach escape velocity?

2- Is it 'an abuse' if somebody moves his fleet into your space, when you're permitted to do the same thing?  If anything, moving a base into your territory should make it easier to kill.

See Netrek for a classic game with mobile bases.  Incoming base?  That's not abuse; it's a target.  Sure, it's fairly powerful, particularly in the hands of somebody well-practiced.  But there are techniques for killing them, and if your team is playing so badly that a single very slow-moving ship is causing you trouble in your own backyard, your team probably deserves to lose... and in Netrek, your team didn't even have to invest a large quantity of resources to construct a base and research its exclusive capabilities.  A player could choose the base if the team didn't currently have a base, hadn't had one recently killed, and the player had sufficient rank.  Picking a base didn't affect the quality of other ships (there being no research or resources...), or affect the quantity of others any more than picking any other ship (in so far as each player could only control one ship at a time, regardless of ship type).   They're sufficiently strong that coordination is normally required to kill them, and they draw significant attention from both sides.  Given time, they can move anywhere around a map with fewer worlds than larger Sins maps -- ten planets per side -- and where there are *no* fixed defenses of any kind; no hangars, no minefields, no phase-jump inhibitors (it's an open map, no choke points), nada.  And with all that, people still played the game fervently and, excepting the odd newbie who never heard of ogging, teamwork or the like, didn't demand nerfing the bases, and having a base wasn't remotely an automatic victory.

If it's too powerful offensively, that probably screams that there's a cost or ability imbalance, not that it should for some reason be still ultra-powerful-for-the-price but immobile.

No, because if you wanted it to move you would not be building a platform but a large, expensive, militarily useful *ship*

1. No No No. Why do you think we got all those nifty new upgrade to exsisting deffences? so you can use them to support your STATIONARY FREKIN BASE. Increase range of sb wepons by alot and make phase blockers more effective in systems you own and the moving thing is not needed. First thing i do with my vasari sb is tell it NOT TO MOVE. the only usefull thing about vasari movment on the sb is pursuing a retreating fleet to lower thier numbers further.

2. Not necesary. just improve the station that already does it and put it near your sb. problem solved. only costs 4 tac points for cs.

3. For the love of god yes. i think they should both stay mobile but thier minelaying function should work the same as the TEC one. Have the minelayer lay a field not just poop on mine at a time. and limmit the hell out of them numbers wise, especialy if its not your system. and make minesweeping more effective. weve gone over this alot already but im saying it anyway

4 yes. no more explaining needed. its just a good idea. though i do agree with an earlier post that non military upgrade need to cost let than shooty ones

5 mabye. i like the idea of planet based deffenses ala rebel ion cannon style. worked well in EAW. it will depend on how its implemented. maby you cant purchase it untill that planet is fully upgraded in every catagory.

6 no. planet sheilds are a uniquly TEC stratagy. i see no reason that should change.

7 NO....just no.

8 Again. NO....just NO. STATIONARY FREKIN BASE. Its a defensive wepon. lets inprove it in that repect. and before anyone says it again the vasari station is NOT thier anti structure wepon.

9 Yes. its the most logical fix to mines current spammyness. this and improved sweeping and make the mines more damaging and they will be fixed without being castrated.

10. Yes, of course. when will they be revealed as the true pursuers of the vasari from thier home empire. "The rainbow gun has breached our hull captain!" Off topic but how cool would it be to find space whales in a grav well. im sure im alone in that. play Weird Worlds and watch Farscape and then come talk to me 

1. All races star bases move
Yay - but very, very slowly. I'd like to be able to strategically reposition them as time goes on, but at the same time if they move so fast that you're actually able to effectively reposition during a battle, well... then it's basically just become a beefy ship. Super duper slow would be fine with me, like "i built it on the left side but it should probably be on the right side" slow.

2. Phase jump inhibitor built into star base. What percent should it be? Keep in mind phase jump inhibitors for planets are usually 700%
Nay. Now a tractor beam that slows one ship nearby regardless of what direction it's going would be kinda cool in it's own way, but... nay.

3. Revamp Mines on Advent and Vasri
Yay. Either limits/caps, make them really costly, or reduce the damage.

4. Starbases take more money and time to construct in exchange for more firepower.
I'd rather see any additional firepower/range come in the way of pricey upgrades. If range goes up significantly, perhaps scale the damage down at a certain distance to keep it from becoming "just plop a starbase anywhere and you're covered".

5. On Planet defenses (Planet to space weapons). Extremely Expensive.
I could go either way, although I'd rather see development time go into something else. If something like this were bolted on, I'd prefer to see it as very weak but very expensive so that it doesn't present an imbalance and could be balanced out later (maybe something that cost a fortune and at best could take out a single non-cap ship). Really though, there's ample room for defensive structures, and especially with the addition of starbases, adding firepower to a planet risks pushing things towards to much defense to overcome.

6. Planetary Shields for starbases.
Nay.

7. More than one starbase per gravity well.
Nay.

8. Interplanetary Star base travel.
Nay.

9. Mine cap limit individual of tatical slots.
Not sure.

10. Space Ponies
Only if they eat mines.

No.  Only moving Vasari Starbases make sense based on their Nomadic Nature

No.  That's what the tactical buildings are for

Absolutely.  Mines are overpowered currently (but remain an excellent idea!)

No.  IMO, they're already very expensive to develop and the Civilian upgrades are pretty dang awesome

Yes, iff I understand what you mean.  I think you mean adding a planetary improvement that allows planets to return fire.  I agree 100% and it would make sense for all three races, but balance will be very important on it so you can't just upgrade your planets and forget about them!

No. Starbases already have shields (but not a bad idea!)

Yes, but only 2 total.  This way you can have a civilian SB and a Military, or 2 of both.

No, but reluctantly.  While it would make sense for Vasari to have SBs to move across planets, that would over-power their already impressive armada (especially since it can be used as a jump point)

100% agree

Heck yeah!  Space Ponies for everyone!

1. nay just increase the range

2. meh I don't really care one way or the other

EDIT: I changed my mind and I think this is a good idea! so yay

3. yay!

4. yay!!!!!

5. sounds cool so yay

6. nay they have Shields already

7. nay, again just increase the range!

8. nay!!! I hate this idea! come on they are starbases not spaceships!!!

9.  yay 100%

10. um... what?