Counters to vasari uberness. » Forum Post by Proletari

A sb would have seriously gimped my army and my ability to move forward against quar.Also quar would have bypassed it same with turrets.I bypassed it because the other ice was a 4 rock compared to 2 and desert provided good creds.It was quars arguement that ilums are great against kanracks not mine.So to back up his statements he should have been building them.I didnt want skirms but there was no way quar was gonna let me build a sb on one of his worlds.He had like6 or 7 factories.I dont usually like to expand away from my enemy at first either but I wanted to get best economy that I could.I think my biggest mistake was not switching to pure skirms after I hit 20 kanracks.Quar is one of the best players on ico so even if I would have lost I would not mind.Him saying this was an example of balance tho I think is wrong.The problem with tier 0 spam is that if you have a few planets like we did you cant kill things faster then you can make them without seriously gimping other fleets dps.Withou repulse or subs it would have stayed like that for quite some time most likely.I didnt need 3 caps because again I dont think in that situation would have helped out a ton.After he gets a certian critical mass even with scouts you can snipe caps as he showed.Not even repair plus heal could have saved it by that point.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Personally I don't give a crap about illums much less have nostalgia about them. I liked it better in original sins when carrier cruisers and fighters were king. LRF were limited but you still had to have them. Everything had a use at that point and you couldn't go too heavy on just 1 thing. I would prefer to have a little bit of everything in a fleet. Everything having its use and its counter but go too heavy on one thing and you were doomed.

This was much more fun.

People complained about carrier dominance but at least you could mix in diff ships with them and carriers were unique in that how you used them(fighters/bombers.Those choices all made a diff and it was fun.

Successfully updated karma reason!

When the carrier capitals were all buffed players were excited because they hoped that it would bring more variety into the game, instead it dumbed it down. I wouldn't want to go back to the old carrier capitals, but the subsequent buffs to both the Halcyon and Skirantra were completely detrimental. The Halcyon should be reverted to the old extra strikecraft rather than extra squadrons system, and the Skirantra reverted to 1.18. Much as I dislike Spamble Bombers, the Halcyon is as much a culprit. The ship has so little need of antimatter that the extra strikecraft ability was required to keep its antimatter down and avoid spampush.

I miss the original game as well. Entrenchment was never properly balanced and the second expansion is crap, rushed out after some very late changes in the beta and then simply abandoned by Ironclad. So much of the technology trees were very heavily affected by Entrenchment and have never been adjusted. There are still far too many valueless technologies in the game. Perhaps the days of I have returning fleets the game is over were too much, but I have returning fleets oh yeah and so what? is just dull. Players might not joke about pirates being a great method of levelling their capitals any more, but they still joke about the TEC super-technology Insurgency.

One aspect of the game that I've never understood is why flak are better against fighters than bombers. There never have been flak weapons that were better against fighters, flak has always been intended for use against bombers. The change is intuitive and would help balance, particularly the heavy cruiser vs. LRF combat which has always been a weak spot.

I can't agree with you Minds, Quar might be strong but all the more reason to deny him any ice planets at all, and you could have taken the other planets later anyway. Quar even took a second ice planet beyond the one you left him. If you were expecting to be down on feed because SB-Rat was in the pocket then it might make more sense. That sort of assessment is why 4s are not useful for balance however, you rarely get equal teams. Even in the rare instance where they look balanced at the start screen it is very map-dependent- unless you use a set map, and there are no good balanced set maps, especially 4s or 5s. Another huge failing of the game is the maps, but for how long has that been a complaint?

Successfully updated karma reason!

When you watch a replay you see everything from start.In game is much more difficult and you cant always wait around for everything to be scouted.I was greedy what can I say.We had equal footing for the first battle.Equal economy as well.That game is not horrible to look at the balance as neither of us got much feed at all.I got no neutrals and was all about planets.This game shows the state of tier 0 units.Military units should beat tier 0.Tier 0 should not be able to outspam and overwhelm military units.This games battles should be based off what military units you field along with your compositions and tecs to counter your enemy.Anyone who goes civs should have a window to be punished.I should have been within that window since he researched both ice and vol.The sheer speed at which he could field low tier units as well as cost to effectiveness is not proportionate to military.Scouts need a supply nerf as well as build time nerf.I think lf are generally fine as anyone can build these as a basic military unit.However when you counter someones lf rush with lrf(which is a low to mid tier military ship) and then they counter you with extremely fastbuilding and fast speed scouts at no cost its just bad mechanics.Not only that but the lf and scout army has speed advantage so its a boring cat and mouse game.Even if you manage to build more military ships he can run with no losses and regroup with a freshly built fleet.

Successfully updated karma reason!

One aspect of the game that I've never understood is why flak are better against fighters than bombers. There never have been flak weapons that were better against fighters, flak has always been intended for use against bombers. The change is intuitive and would help balance, particularly the heavy cruiser vs. LRF combat which has always been a weak spot.

I have felt the same way.However I would like to see an equal usefulness for flak vs both.I think to keep flak useful they could be more of a tank unit.Give them hp buff.Make flaks effectiveness vs fighters and bombers just a bit better than what it is vs bombers now.Now we truly have a unit that remains useful but doesnt obliterate anything.Great survivability while being soft counters to multiplie units.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Do u want to know why flaks r better against fighters then bombest? in great shortcut, its Cykur fault:)

Once upone time when sins universe was young and full of noobs Cykur faced a dev, dont remember who exactly and used carreirs against lrfs fleet, and he anihilated it.

Then suddenly carrer got nerfed, forst, the speed reduce, then sc replenish and armor against lfs, then flaks got more effective against all sc.

But, when all carrers become obselote, case fe flaks made u fighters and bombers proof, it was changed so flaks stayed as effective against fighters but much less agaist bombers.

There were aloso a lot of crying on the forum about carreir ubeness but, at alest u had to be good at micro to pawn with tem.

Flaks r non-micro easy mode

If u will change flaks to be good against bombers and useless against fighters, it will move the balance from lrf to lfs and HC.

Minds, i couldnt agree more. Spamming is evil. I hate it, but i hate to loose even more.

I think the only answer to this is increasing penalty for every fleet level and incresing basic differences in units but i really dont know if it will work, cause unfortunately, numbers are better then quality whith is very sad

Successfully updated karma reason!

If u will change flaks to be good against bombers and useless against fighters, it will move the balance from lrf to lfs and HC.

Exactly what I was thinking.Thats why I propose equal to fighter and bomber.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I heard much the same story about carrier cruisers and LRF- that carrier cruisers could kite LRF until one of the developers tried to use LRF against carrier cruisers rather than build any LF.

Carrier capitals, of course, can still kite LRF. I would have capitals pay AM for strikecraft replenishment, nothing should be free. As capitals should still have advantages you might make it 25%-33% of the rate, just not completely free.

I'm not sure about the 'punishment' window in the game though- Minds would seem to have used this window to take a desert even further away from the action? It isn't a huge cost to research ice on top of volcanic after all, compared to an opponent who also has to have two civics for ice? Also, Quar had a faster build up because he was building from four factories as opposed to one, later joined by a second. If it had been straightforward one vs one then Minds might have had the advantage of the neutrals that he was having to fight SB_Rat for, and is a usual Vasari advantage against Advent.

I haven't found flak to be easy to micro as LRF, flak are short ranged and go chasing strikecraft all over the place if you let them, and they get murdered by starbases. LRF have to turn occasionally. Thats about it for LRF.

Yeah, moving to HC is exactly what I'd like, lets get the game moving back up the tiers. There might need to be extra counters against LF- I've always wanted an improvement in early defences, with turrets to cost no crystal, since they don't have to move at all, and mines to be more explosive (so that they kill frigates not just scare them) but more limited in numbers. That would add more variety.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm not sure about the 'punishment' window in the game though

This meaning he did not invest in any military labs or research and I did.If the game was balanced by military instead of scouts then the person who rushed for military would have a window of advantage over someone that went eco.Until the eco actually kicked in and was converted to military.You can have a 100 creds a second and 3 caps and lose to someone who built 70lrf and 2 caps with 15 cred income.

If this was true like it should be with a strategy game then I should have took that ice from quar because I was building military while he had lf until he got labs and teced ships.IInstead he got scouts and pushed me back.Our game was stalemated on equal grounds even tho I got desert.We both had 2 planets.Later on he got the the other ice because I could not keep up with his tier 0 spam and be a threat.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You have to use your judgment about what type of game you should play.

Playing eco when you are within close range of an opponent will result in your death.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting MindsEye,

reply 57

If u will change flaks to be good against bombers and useless against fighters, it will move the balance from lrf to lfs and HC.
Exactly what I was thinking.Thats why I propose equal to fighter and bomber.

Minds, wrong.

If they will be ass efective to bombers as they r to fighters now. carriers will become obselote like they were 2 -3 patches ago cause 20 flaks make your fleet sc proof.

But if they will be as effective against fighters as they r now against bombers, that will make carriers only fleets.

Flaks cant be answer for everything, they r already op. Its very very hard to balance this issue, even slight 20% change totaly change the units balance.

I think little nerf to flaks vs fighters or buff fighters armor/hp would be ok but cant say about numbers.

PS. There is 1 option that will alow all units to be used in fleet and will reduce spamm of 1 kind of units. It will require great amount of testig. Every ship class and every cap class should have their own armor type and the differences in dmg done by certain weepons to certain armors should be bigger. That plus hudge tuning job would make sins perfect. ( 3 armor types is not enough)

Successfully updated karma reason!

Make flaks effectiveness vs fighters and bombers just a bit better than what it is vs bombers now

You say Im wrong before you read what I said.

Successfully updated karma reason!

PS. There is 1 option that will alow all units to be used in fleet and will reduce spamm of 1 kind of units. It will require great amount of testig. Every ship class and every cap class should have their own armor type and the differences in dmg done by certain weepons to certain armors should be bigger. That plus hudge tuning job would make sins perfect. ( 3 armor types is not enough)

Agreed.Maybe see this in sins 2 in like 5 yrs.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I posted this a while ago... but I think a possible solution to the bomber swarm/weak fighters issue would be to greatly reduce the speed at which both are built. Make it so that when SC are killed they stay killed at least for a little while. This would make Fighters viable.

The biggest problem in sins across the board (not talking faction balance) is that LRF are op, Bombers tower over all and some units barely get a look in (LFs/HCs are useful depending on situation and fighters are almost a waste of antimatter). If fighters were given buff to survivability they could help thin out both LRF and bombers (but only if the bombers stay dead).

Picture this: Fighter swarm is built as possible counter to suspected enemy bomber swarm but they are kept docked. When bombers are set loose then out come the fighters to handle them and the LRF. Flak on both sides would help thin both out while frigates do battle.

Make each SC valuable instead of a unlimited resource. Whats the point of having a unit that kills something that costs nothing and is built on the battlefield for free.

Successfully updated karma reason!

If one removes SC by nerfing their build time greatly, then no carrier cruisers would be built at all. This would also exacerbate scramble if done alone because it is built instantly for a cost of AM rather than slowly for free. It also removes an LRF counter in fighters(not that its a huge counter at present anyways) and makes lrf even worse. The problem is that it is practically impossible to clear the field of bombers with scramble bombers as it sits right now. Even with no flak and anti-SC abilities like telekinetic push you cannot get rid of them fast enough. It is often better to not even try and just use fighters to kill assailants until flak are present or to build bombers and try to snipe a cap. That along with other vasari advantages such as phase missles which are cheap to upgrade and on everything make it extremely difficult to even keep a cap around to make the fighters. Fighters having better survivability is an improvement but only part of the answer. Keep in mind that SC are free only on caps and SB to an extent. Carrier cruisers have no other weapons besides the SC and are limited by AM which is sapped by a couple of jumps. Making cap SC require AM would definitely have an effect but whether its for the good or bad I could not say without seeing it in action. Things definitely need adjusted but I am hesitant to say what. I don't even know that they will be adjusted. Scramble isn't the only thing that vasari needs changed either.

[_]-Greyfox

Successfully updated karma reason!

ZombiesRus5

Join Date 02/2009

+340

I don't know what the answer is to counter SB without tweaking it. Looking at it from an early game perspective the only way to neutralize SB is to build flak. Fighters don't work because Vasari can load with fighters and SB or just bring a few flak to clear them. Plus all you are doing is feeding the Skirantra experience while your fighters are dropped like flies.

Hangars are worse with fighters as once they AM is gone they become bricks and can never generate more than a single strikecraft per squad when a capital ship is present with any fighter or flak support.

Personally I don't recall any of this being an issue before SB bombers made the skirantra the equivalent of 6 carriers at level 3. Sure the Halcyon was tough but probably made more threatening due to the Illums... I could push back Halcyon rushes as Vasari before SB was buffed...

Will the game ever be balanced... Probably not, but atleast make it fun again and there is nothing fun with the current SB mechanic and balance issues. I'd also like to see heavies actually fulfill the role as hard LRF counter, Bombers counter heavies, and light frigates are then needed to counter carriers heavy fleets in an ideal world.

Another thing I've noted is how underpowered advents heavy hull is compared to the others (per supply). TECH and Vasari get almost double the hull and shield from the LRF to Heavy while Advent gets 1.25 more hull and 1.5 more shield...

It would also be nice if the shield specialists (Advent) could figure out how to prevent shield bypass (maybe Guardians)...

I just can't get myself to play Advent online anymore after looking at the numbers on these things.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I will continue to play advent no matter what. I just lose more now because most everyone else uses vasari.

[_]-Greyfox

Successfully updated karma reason!

Making caps use am for sc is bad idea to me.It means you would have to completely chooses between sc or abilities.For a ship like the sove would greatly decrease useablity.I think the haly would come out ahead bigtime over others because it has only 1 ability that uses am until level 6.So tweak sb and make fighters good and game will be much diff.Dont forget carriers can get HARD counters by a dunov or the lf special ability.All of these strategic abilities and ship combos are not viable because there are no fighters in game to deal with lrf and bombers.It would be nice to see some small buff to cap ship anti sc abilities.Maybe just a range buff would make them more useful.Would also help balance out the carriers.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I've still not seen the Dunov used as a hard counter to carrier capitals, even in this carrier capital dominated version of the game. I'm inclined to believe that the Dunov being a hard counter to carriers is a myth. The LF special ability is useful against capitals in theory, but again I've not seen it work in practice in any games I've been in or any of the replays I've watched. I'm not sure that it autocasts properly, and it would be a pain to micro.

A 25%-33% AM cost for strikecraft would still leave carrier capitals very powerful, they would just take some work, like carrier cruisers, and not be spam fountains. The Halcyon could have its extra squadrons reverted to extra strikecraft. What we all want is for LRF and carrier capitals to be less central. If the flak emphasis is shifted to bombers this will allow fighters, capital ships and heavies longer life. Making fighters stronger will just increase the carrier capital dependence, even if accompanied by the very necessary Scramble Bombers revert. Making flak stronger against bombers and weaker against fighters will help other types of capital ships.

Advent are still very potent against TEC. The disadvantage they have in 1.19 is that TEC are more useful in the niche pocket role when most players are Vasari. There have been non-Vasari games, where Advent have the strongest fleets.

There's much that needs work in the game, most of the second expansion was broken and there have been technologies that have never been useful since the original launch, like the notorious Pinpoint Bombardment. But even if some miracle takes place and this sort of rubbish gets fixed, the counters system has always needed reworking.

The current version of the game has no depth at all, either in single player or in multiplayer. If all the next patch does is to make ever vaster galaxies of dross possible, then that will be it for me. I'm still waiting for a single report that one AI can achieve a truce with another in an FFA game. We've been left with a lousy game, and a wall of silence about it, for far too long.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Seleuceia

Join Date 01/2008

+240

Wow...you all sure have been busy over the last few days...I don't know whether to call this a debate or just Qu4r vs. the world...

There are a lot of things I would quote, but this thread is stretched over three pages so I think I'll just stick to these two quotes and hope the other references are self-explanatory...Quite honestly, I think the whole first post by DesConnor was good, but these quotes captures the two most significant things I got out of it...

Quoting DesConnor,

reply 7

However there is little hope for any kind of balance patch to fix the game. Firstly the game has never been remotely balanced...the Skirantras are just the latest in a long weary line of poorly considered additions and attempted refinements...

A very good statement that I think we all need to be aware of...bottom line is, Stardock ain't balancing this game for us even if they do release a future patch or expansion...if balance is to be brought to this game, it will only be through mods made by us the players...that leads to the next thing...

Quoting DesConnor,

reply 7

Secondly, even if at this late stage there was a wholehearted effort made at a beta balance patch, there aren't the players to support it. Even the most experienced players seem to be of the opinion that the game can be balanced using their 5v5 experience, and it just can't.

I think this is also a very good statement we all need to consider....player skill is only a reflection of your ability to use the current game mechanics...

There are a lot of things that make a player good at this game, but ultimately all skilled players have two things in common: 1) they are proactive and 2) they, through experience, know what works and what doesn't...

Only one of those traits actually reflects a player's ability to evaluate the game, and neither of those traits guarantee you'll be good at changing the game and predicting the consequences...

During Project Equilibrium, probably the most valuable asset to that mod was Darvin...it wasn't because he's the most skilled player out there, it was because he could predict the consequences of changes we made...I don't care how skilled you are at the game, your ability does not guarantee you will be the best at aligning a series of changes to put the game into balance...skill is important to a point since it reflects a person's understanding of the game, but it only goes so far...

I always like seeing people's ideas on how to improve this game, but don't use your skill at this game as a resume for why your ideas about balancing are better than anyone else's...really, don't do it....it really doesn't make you look any more credible, it only makes you look like an ass...

DesConnor has constantly demanded replays...I would go a step further and say that personal experience playing the game with certain changes is the only good way to really understand how those changes worked out...

I use a balance mod where a lot of changes initially were implemented based entirely on theory...however, I've played the mod a lot in both SP and in LAN games with friends (obviously the SP experience isn't nearly as valuable)...I won't ever claim that mod to be perfect, but I can say through experience that many of the changes actually work...some worked perfectly from the beginning but many had to be refined or completely scrapped...

Darvin's proposal for scramble bombers is as such...

Scramble Bombers
- Duration decreased from 120s to 60s
- Antimatter cost changed from 50 to 45/50/55
- Cooldown time decreased from 35s to 24s

This isn't just some theory or crack idea...it has been implemented, tested, vetted, and it works beautifully...I can say this because I've played both as Vasari and against Vasari using SB under these changes...

A lot of things had to be changed, but ultimately the changes were successful in making all 15 capital ships very viable and all frigate/cruiser types very important even during the late game...there is no OP ability like scramble bombers, there is no dominate unit like bombers or LRF, and the factions are pretty close through out all stages of the game to the point where player skill and map position will make faction power discrepancies almost unnoticeable...

I don't support these changes because they sound good, because some skilled DT player vouched for them, or because I watched a few replays...I support the changes because I've played with them against other human beings and so far they work out better than the current official version of the game...

I think threads like these have the potential to be useful...but how many people actually try out these changes? Not just talk about them, discuss them, work out the theoretical numbers...I mean actually change the game files and play a game or two (or ten) with them...really, try it...it works...I know a lot of people don't have the time or motivation to and that is perfectly understandable...but for those of you so eager to prove your point, make a mod and test it...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Seleuceia

Join Date 01/2008

+240

Now to specific...

DesConnor, I played a 1v1v1 game where one player dropped after 5 minutes, so it essentially was a 1v1, TEC (me) vs. Vasari...

I did a double dunov start under the assumption my Vasari adversary would do a skirantra rush...I had a battle on my homeworld (very small map) with 1 dunov using magnetize vs. 2 skirantras (some kanrak/LRMs as well)...later in the game a similar battle was fought with my 2 dunov's vs his 3 skirantras (again, with some LRMs and kanraks)...

Magnetize+EMP single-handedly saved my ass that game...however, there were a lot of things that allowed for that...one, every single one of those battles was a defensive battle for me, so his skirantras were down 1 or 2 jumps worth of AM...second, my enemy was competent, but not a veteran...

Despite trying multiple times, I have not replicated this success in another game, neither with a double dunov start nor a sova+dunov....in my experience, I agree 100% that the dunov is not a hard counter to carriers or skirantras with SB...obviously, under the right circumstances it can work out just right...but your enemy has to do a double skirantra rush (paying for the 2nd prevents too many kanraks) and has to be low on AM...otherwise, the dunovs aren't worth it and you're much better with an akkan, sova, or boat load of LRMs...

Darvin mentioned a speed change to LRFs (and some caps), and I will agree that such changes immensely improved the survivability of caps...I would note that a slight decrease in anti-medium vs. capital armor was also implemented...I would also note that the speed debuff only applied to LRMs and kanraks, not illuminators...

Some other people have brought up the idea that flak should counter both fighters and bombers...

In part, I'm sympathetic to this desired change...however, it does mess with the counter system a bit...if you are trying to change the counter system then that's one thing...if you are simply looking to debuff bombers, I would suggest increasing anti-light vs. light...this change makes fighters very useful and very viable....while they are still easily shot down by flak, they quickly can shoot down bombers...after a while the flak will have killed all the fighters, but the bomber numbers will have been brought down sufficiently such that flak will be more than capable at suppressing large carrier fleets...

IF you are going to make flak better against bombers, I would suggest increasing flak's accuracy against them instead of increasing anti-very light vs light...this way, flak won't be better against LRF, only better against bombers (trust me, there are far better ways to nerf LRF)...

As for HCs...making them the dominant ship type is one way to go, however, I'd prefer that no ship type dominate...I believe this to be very possible...some settings that I play with seem to prevent any fleet based mostly on 1 or 2 units from succeeding unless the enemy does not use the appropriate counter...even kanrak/bomber spams are easilycountered with the right combination of fighters, LFs, and HCs (though you'll still probably lose some caps)...

One thing I think people should be aware of is the construction times for SC...currently, Vasari SC build much faster than their TEC or advent counterparts...combined with having the highest HP and repair cloud, Vasari SC are vastly superior and nerfing them appropriately is a multi-step process...it is also one highly dependent on how flak, LF, HCs, LRF, AM of hangars, and capital ships (mainly non carriers relative to carriers) are changed....

Finally, for those of you who claim that Vasari are not OP...really? I mean, really? If there weren't so many of you, I'd swear y'all are trollin'...

Arguing that map position and player skill are just as important as faction selection is one thing...but to claim that Vasari aren't that OP...really???

Kosturas? Scramble bombers?? Level 2 SBs that move??? Scout ships grabbing neutrals???? Phase missiles???? Did I mention phase missiles?

Quoting Qu4r,

reply 13

All u crying advent bitches STFU.

I know Grey nothing i write wont change your mind, cause u have " nerf vasari" implemented to your dna and even if ill do to u what i did to gandalf when he was singing your song, that is kicked his ass , me advent, he vasari wont change it.

But to other people: its not true, vasa isnt overpowered. All depends of the map. If vasari has tons of neuts nere him, sure, he is invincible, but if there isnt any or there is little, Vasa is defencless like a baybe and u can simply outspamm him

Quoting Qu4r,

reply 30

People, u must understand. Vasa rnt overpowered sure they have their advantages and dissadvantages, they r better late game while weeker early game. That haw sisn works, there r advantages and dissadvantages. If u cry something is overpowered cause without using all your advantages u cant beat it u r a moron.

I read these statements, and I am in awe...you should get a gold medal in trolling...seriously, reading these posts was the highlight of my day...cheers to you, mate...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Seleuceia,

reply 71

Quoting Qu4r, reply 13All u crying advent bitches STFU.

I know Grey nothing i write wont change your mind, cause u have " nerf vasari" implemented to your dna and even if ill do to u what i did to gandalf when he was singing your song, that is kicked his ass , me advent, he vasari wont change it.

But to other people: its not true, vasa isnt overpowered. All depends of the map. If vasari has tons of neuts nere him, sure, he is invincible, but if there isnt any or there is little, Vasa is defencless like a baybe and u can simply outspamm him

Quoting Qu4r, reply 30
People, u must understand. Vasa rnt overpowered sure they have their advantages and dissadvantages, they r better late game while weeker early game. That haw sisn works, there r advantages and dissadvantages. If u cry something is overpowered cause without using all your advantages u cant beat it u r a moron.

I read these statements, and I am in awe...you should get a gold medal in trolling...seriously, reading these posts was the highlight of my day...cheers to you, mate...

Im happy i made u happy and maybe addusted my tactics to Greys overcrying but...

What exactly dont u belive? that vasa without neuts is defnceless even against advent ? want me to add another replay me advent vs gnadalf vasar, ? Gandalf had neuts used sb and lost toaly didnt hold like Minds.

This is rather funny, people agree with me that changes must be done in whole sins but then des and grey keeps saying noone will do big balance so lets nerf scramble bombers. Those guys need the part "People, u must understand. Vasa rnt overpowered sure they have their advantages and dissadvantages, they r better late game while weeker early game. That haw sisn works, there r advantages and dissadvantages. If u cry something is overpowered cause without using all your advantages u cant beat it u r a moron."

They wont understand real argument even if it will kick them in their buts.

Or they will ignore it and keep repetaing their ideas endless forever, so at last 3 pages only theyr ideas will stay.

Changing 1 ability will always ends i great inbalance cause like Seleuceia sad balancing is the job of predicting haw the change will affect the gameplay. not screaming on forums

PS its always Quar against the world i got use to it

Successfully updated karma reason!

Here the thing about a fan made balance mod.If someone changes stuff and people would actually try the mod and give feedback additional balance changes can be made monthly.The problem is I agree with quar that there should be advantages and disadvantages.I dont want mirror matchups with different skins.That is one of the problems I see with it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Seleuceia

Join Date 01/2008

+240

Mirror match-ups is a potential problem, but so far not one I have encountered....

For example...

Hitting three military labs really early on is difficult...this means that, no matter how you change units, Advent will always get LRFs later and Vasari/TEC will always get carriers later...

Early game, TEC and Vasari will be using mostly LRMs and Kanraks...but Advent will likely be using disciple rushes with fighters, bombers, or flak...

Despite how terrible LFs are, you still see Advent players on ICO doing disciple rushes because it is simply what you do if you are Advent, nothing else is really all that feasible...balancing the units so that LFs are more viable still preserves the faction differences, but gives the Advent a decent early game...

Balancing really is not enough, you have to foster diversity too...if all 15 capital ships were more viable instead of only like 7, that change could actually accentuate faction differences and could be a method of balancing the factions more precisely...

The biggest problem with fan made...anything...isn't the quality...the real problem is that it ain't "official" and so it is unlikely to be adopted by large amounts of people...

Generally, this is irrelevant for games with very strong single-players...but, for an RTS like sins that banks heavily on MP play, obviously this poses a problem...

Distant Stars is (I assume) the most popular mod for sins (I exclude mods like Bailknight's Graphic mod since it doesn't affect gameplay)....nevertheless, a lot of people DON'T USE DS....it's not because it isn't well made, good quality, or balanced....even if DS was divinely inspired and gloriously entertaining, a lot of people still won't use it because it isn't official...

Unfortunately, without an official patch or expansion, ICO will likely remain the way it is, and no mod will ever gain enough support or consensus to be used...

However, there is still use for mods...some people really do enjoy the SP element of this game, and some people still play many LAN games with friends that are willing to all use the same mod....

I don't get any benefit from a balance mod if I want to play on ICO...but, when I want to play a LAN game with some of my friends, we use a balance mod and enjoy this game much more because of it...

Discussions like this may have no impact on ICO or future updates, but they do give good ideas to players that use their own mods for SP or with friends via LAN...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Heh,a balancing mod sewed into the next patch would solve all our problems ....anyone knows devs personally?

Successfully updated karma reason!