Sort of disapointed (entrenchment issues)

from Sins Forums

Well I been trying entrenchment for several days now.

 

And well, while it's a good idea, its  implementation is very flawed.

Like the idea of being able to deploy stations anywhere, but their virtually useless, easily bypassed and their range is laughable. So far seems like its the vasari that get everything with this and the others suffer.

Last play was rediculous, since 1/4 of the vasari fleet attacking my planets were mine layers. Making it impossible to defend with fleets jumping in from other systems and even in system since the AI keeps laying a ton of mines all over the place making it impossible to defend your own systems without loosing a rediculous amount of ships and more notably capships. Should make laying mines on opponents territory impossible unless they loose control of it... right now the mines make it more grueling than enjoyable. At least TEC have a reastrictable methode, but the others are rather abusive and rather overpowered use of em.

 

Immobile starbases need something to make em more usefull.

I thought the TEC station was supposed to get Long range missiles, but I have never seen it fire a single one at max level. Maybe give it an ability to deploy limited number of defensive platforms (like the sova carrier can). At least something to compete with the vasari station, since you can move that one to where ships jump in etc to maximise effect.

I find that to compete with the other races TEC stations should be allowed to manufacture mines, via upgrade. Anyways in all other Space tactical games stations always were usefull, and were difficult to bypass. But in SOAE their just too easy to ignore, only the Vasari one is a pain to deal with.

 

Only other thing I can think of is allow the TEC and advent to build secondary style stations that are weaker but are still deadly in their own... (maybe half Hull/Shield/slightly reduce power) but able to build more than one.

Or keep the TEC and Advent stations as is but give em an upgrade that lets em deploy defense platforms that are much stronger than the Tactical slotted ones but weaker than the station itself. ( with the ability to maybe give em 2 upgrade slots each.).

I just don't find em worthwhile, their normally meant to protect but in here they don't work at all defence wise unless you know at 100% where they jump in, it's useless. And even then  its useless since they,ll just rush out of its range and ignore it from there. Even Pirates completely ignore em unless you got your hangars and such near it.

Maybe just used to others where building stations adds em in orbit making it hard to bypass em.

 

2,127 views 12 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top

what do you expect for the second beta version?

Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top

Isnt this what a Beta is for, to iron out balance issues, find bugs, :grin: .

 

 

Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top

Change of title: 'entrenchment issues'

 

Thats the whole point of a beta, you highlight issues and they sort them out

Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top

yes.  mines blow.  they added around 20 extra minutes to a game in which I just took over a system but my ships still want to run smack dab into them and in the past I was never used to keeping seeker vessels around.  even with them and their little circle of "view" it is a 50/50 chance I can clear a mine field.  and I have to use a cap ship too because it would be the only strong enough to take the hit just in case there is an "oops."

mines: great idea!

mines: bad implementation.

as for SB's, I like them.  I consider them as a defensive unit only.  Their range may suck, but even if they had long range it would NOT be all of their firepower.  In other words, less lethal.

From what I can tell, SB's gain even more HP, shields, and firepower DPS as you research them for your vessels.  It is not uncommon to see SB's with nearly 20,000 hull, 15,000 shield and DPS that combine for around 500!!!

One posibility is to place your SB wisely . . . as close to the incoming phaselane as possible.

Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top

There's time to fix these issues, but I largely agree. Starbases as they stand now do work as defenses if the player in question actually attacks them. If said player decides to fly around and go attack squishier targets, you wasted your resources. If said player flies around and bombards the planet from the other side? Oh well.  Offensive Starbase building works better, which seems kinda counter-intuitive.

 

Mines... what more can be said about mines? The implementation as it stands right now is literally game breaking. They need major changes to be playable, but I'm still in favor of outright removal. They really don't add to the "fun" factor of Sins, just to the tedium. Most suggestions on how to fix it don't address the lack of "fun", they just attempt to automate the removal. So you can pay for a ship to let the computer handle some of the tedium for you.

Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top

I wish there was a way to turn mines off, as there is for pirates for example.  I dont have the beta, but all this talk is reducing my enthusiasm.  Its hard to imagine a way to introduce mines without making the game more tedious.  Well maybe if instead of destroying ships the mines slowed down your ships, ate anti-matter, or shut down weapons.  Actually that sounds like fun.

Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top

I have to admit I feel pretty disapointed too.  Pretty much everything entrenchment is disapointing.

First, we have a ton of balance issues with mines/SBs.  Most of the existing balance issues are still there too, so it doesnt really seem improved at all.  Actually, I think Entrenchment was a step backward, because I play without starbases and win easier now.

Second, Entrenchment was supposed to be released before the beta.  Saying this, the beta is in pretty poor shape.  I get minidumps and crashes all the time (And from these forums I'm not the only one).  Add in the crappy balance and the AI that seems to abuse these more (Maybe the AI did get better...), and entrenchment isnt more fun.

Entrenchment seems like a look in the right direction, with a trip on the first step.  I think the starbases are a good idea, and the defense upgrades have good intention, but the implementation of these is bad.  As others have said, Starbases dont stop or even deter fleets, they just get bypassed just like all other defenses in Sins.  This means those defense upgrades are also pretty useless.  For the cost of fortifying a planet enough to defend itself your enemy will buy a fleet and raid your other planets.  Until these core problems are fixed, I dont really see why anyone would want to use entrenchment, other then in some AI games.

 

Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top

Starbases as they stand now do work as defenses if the player in question actually attacks them. If said player decides to fly around and go attack squishier targets, you wasted your resources. If said player flies around and bombards the planet from the other side? Oh well.
End of quote

There are techs available that prevent planets from being conquered/captured until the starbase is destroyed.

Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting kryo, reply 8

There are techs available that prevent planets from being conquered/captured until the starbase is destroyed.
End of kryo's quote

They don't prevent the planet from being wiped out, though. Someone can come in, flatten the planet (thus preventing me from buliding there and taking away tax revenue/artifacts), then move on without ever being challenged by the Starbase. They can also go on to any planets behind the Starbase with impunity.

Its a question of what you think a Starbase should do. I want it to be something the enemy has to engage if they want to attack that system, or any system it's guarding. Right now, they don't accomplish that goal.

Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting kryo, reply 8

Starbases as they stand now do work as defenses if the player in question actually attacks them. If said player decides to fly around and go attack squishier targets, you wasted your resources. If said player flies around and bombards the planet from the other side? Oh well.
There are techs available that prevent planets from being conquered/captured until the starbase is destroyed.
End of kryo's quote

This doesnt work. Had a planet flipped with culture w/ starbase in orbit.

Reply #11 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Tridus, reply 5
Starbases as they stand now do work as defenses if the player in question actually attacks them. If said player decides to fly around and go attack squishier targets, you wasted your resources. If said player flies around and bombards the planet from the other side?
End of Tridus's quote

you have the comfort of being able to keep a decent fleet on this "squishier" planet and if the enemy wants to take on the SB then you can phase in and help.  so far, the AI seems prone to wanting to fight the SB or avoid the planet completely.

 

I can live with a planet being wiped out with a standing SB in the grav well IF I don't have to invest in all of the planetary upgrades again. 

 

as for switching due to culture, you can research a way to slow it with the Advent, but since a SB is a populated base and not a "robot," you'd expect it to suffer from the same culture influx as the planet in whose grav well it sits.

Reply #12 from Sins Forums Top

An auxilary Government should'nt be swayed by culture.