What about the vision the developer's had for thier own game?
Originally sins was supposed to be all open mapped. No phase lanes. Orbiting planets, moons etc. But then came the multiplayer aspect which IMO is what killed those aspirations.
I thought the game was balanced just fine before entrenchment came out. and early versions of entrenchment seemed to be ok to me. Yet there always seems to be "someone" who will not be happy no matter what the dev's do. They are indeed bending over backwards to make all the unnecessary changes that are being demanded by the fans. Deviating from thier own vision of what the original game should have been like to satisfy you guys.
Something new for the relentless MP crowd to think about.
first off, woot! i can finally post here, it was broken for me since it was created so sorry if i repeat whats already been said
so, i have to agree somewhat with Major Stress and other people who think similarly, alot of this balance stuff is really only an issue to MP. its the same thing for alot of games, including Halo 3 and Command and Conquer (Microsoft and EA respectively told the developers to concentrate on game balance and MP rather than the SP aspect.
I never knew that IC intended for Sins to be like that, though it sounds fun. However, on the other hand, i realise that first concepts and dreams of how a game could be usually will have to be changed simply to facilitate gameplay. for instance, i like to daydream about a style of powered walker armor, i wont bore you with the details, but basically i daydream that i jump in to movies ad stuff with that armor and hand out all sorts of death and destruction. problem with that is it makes for a horrible game/movie, because there is no complication. just like C&C3:Tiberium Wars, i would just spam GDI Mammoths and roll over the enemy. even hard AI and friends i played against couldnt counter it. its awesome and fantasmagorical, but makes for bad sport if there is no 'twist' or 'complication' as they say in literature etc.
So, on one hand, yes, it sucks when your original dreams have to be changed and altered or even dropped for whatever reason, but on the other hand, if you want a 'good' game, or at least one that works, if not one thats interesting, some things have to be changed to make things difficult, but survivable and surpassable.
to sort of sum up, yeah, i think alot of the omg this has been nerfed or this needs to be changed or this is OP comes from, the MP community, and then its only when someone gets outplayed. honestly, i dont think anyone fired a marza missile barrage or pulled off a successful LRF spam and thought "man, that was too easy!" so yes, maybe something is broken, but maybe you just got outplayed and cant handle it. really, i wonder if you play a game of football and complain when you get beat because the other team passed the ball better than you. still, in all fairness, if it is broken, then the most important and relevant feedback will come from the people who it affects, the MP community.
i dont know how IC checks the communities opinion on balance, but it sounds to me like there was a good triangle between carriers, LF and LRF, then Flak was brought into it, which did mess something up. as it was, LRF beat LF, LF beat Carriers, and Carriers beat LRF, except now flak come in and beats SC, while not beating LRF. so LRF is now basically uncountered because there is another ship that covers its ass. thats my opinion on why the balance triangle is broken. i dont know hot to fix it... other than maybe dropping flak frigs from the game entirely, changing fighters to an exclusively (or at least, a much more effective) anti SC role, and giving bombers the damage buff vs LRF the fighters presently have. alternatively, giving LF's a damage boost vs flak frigs as well as LRF might counter it, but now you need twice as many LF to deal with twice as many ships.
its difficult to fix, the more i think about it the more i have to admit maybe the current style is fundamentally flawed. i mean, we have light, but nonetheless frontline grunt ships, LFs present in the beginning of the game. then, you tech up and now have these even lighter, but much more damaging and longer ranged LRF's. they counter LF's very well, as would be expected from a more advanced ship. at the same time you can also research flak frigates, which are pretty useless vs the 3-4 kinds of ships currently available. then you tech up again, and you get Carriers, these ships themselves do nothing, but the SC they carry are very effective vs LRF. (and, if im not mistaken, the bombers they also carry are effective vs all other ships currently available). so, now we have a good triangle, except the ranges just keep increasing. its like i hit you with a gun, then you hit me with a cannon shell, then i hit you with artillery and you hit me with a missile etc etc etc. but you know how to take out something with alot of range? you get up close. currently thats how it works, LF are good vs Carriers, except by the time they get close enough to fire they've been all but destroyed. AND EVEN THEN, the carriers and LRF can still engage and destroy the LF even when they are practically sitting in each others laps.
im hesitant to say this but i think it may just be possible that the system is fundamentally flawed, and its not how much you change and optimise the numbers. idn, either make Carriers and LRFs effective at taking out other carriers and LRF (respectively), so that the range isnt so much of an issue, or else maybe bringing the HC way down the tech tree, and replace where the HC is currently with a larger, more powerful 'destroyer' type. that way, we can counter the increasing range of ships early game with a beast that can survive to get up close then take out the carriers etc, and then later game we still get the heavy firepower currently offered by the HC. i know alot of people wont go for this, but i really dont think playing with numbers is going to fix it.
(sorry for the long post, but like i said, i havent been able to post here since now so i had alot to say)