Don't forget to add Subverters, Phase Stabilizers and the Kostura to the list of Vasari's excellent strengths.  Sure, they're late game and so don't appear very often in a typical 4v4 or 5v5 match, but when they do show up they're nightmares to take care off.  Consider that a skilled Vasari with subverters could go toe-to-toe with a battleball back in 1.181, imagine now that the illum bug is fixed and Advent DPS has been dramatically reduced. 

That's not to undervalue the problem with phase missiles.  They affect all the game's most powerful unit types (LRF, flaks, fighters, bombers.  Seriously, these are all you ever need.  Light frigates and heavies are nice to have, but not really necessary... and as Vasari why would you even bother with the marvellous phase missile at your disposal?), they are absurdly effective against shielded enemies, and to top it off they turn what are already deadly capital ship killers into ridiculous capital ship assassins.

I personally think LRF and bombers are already too strong against capital ships, but phase missiles just push the Vasari varients off the cliff.  This needs to change, and I agree that phase missiles having reduced benefit against capital ships (and starbases, for that matter) is a great place to start.  However, I think all bombers, long range frigates, and while we're at it fighters too need to have their damage multiplier against capital ships reduced.

I think that Vasari would still reign supreme even without scramble.  The only thing holding them back in 1.181 was their poor combat scout and the bugged illuminator that just dominated the field.  The scout is now an irrelevant combat unit and the illuminator bug is fixed.  As far as I'm concerned, they're still the strongest (though not by any ridiculous margin) faction and scramble is just gravy.

I dont. I want TEC turn to be OP.

I say give the TEC a much less antimatter hog of a Kol, and then watch as everyone shifts to TEC.

I would just lower build costs and take the stackability of designate target up to like, 5 or something.

40% a pop: 200% for max

what do you say?

I agree, and would like to see LRF and bombers take a dramatic reduction to their anti-capital ship power.  If capital ships are no longer fearing for their life from highly mobile strike craft or ridiculously long-ranged snipers, they can actually enter the fray and have a hope of surviving it. 

Just make demobots have 360 degree casting arc and keep the hoshiko turn rate.  Cielo, though, could indeed use the turn rate buff.

Indeed; capital ship armour is kind of weird, in that its similar to very-heavy in every way except it's conveniently vulnerable to LRF.  I think reducing anti-medium's damage to capital to 25% (from current 75%) would be appropriate.

Vasari flaks and fighters kill capital ships strictly because of phase missiles.  I think it's important to keep perspective and try to think about the LRF/bomber issue separately from the phse missile issue.  They are one and the same for Vasari, but they're completely unrelated as far as TEC and Advent are concerned.

In practice, though, LRF and bombers give you so much higher DPS for your money that their 75% modifier ends up meaning nothing; they chew through caps at a crazy rate.

I predict that whatever changes are made, the balance between the races in this game will never be perfect.  When one race gets buffed up another race becomes weaker by comparison.  Other than Scramble Bombers, I think the races are pretty well balanced as is.  Phase Missiles have been around since the game's release and have not traditionally been regarded as a huge problem.  The sad fact of the matter is that nerfing phase missiles in any significant faction will relegate Vasari to the sidelines.

OK, I can see your point of nerfing the phase missiles against capital ships only.

It's not scramble bombers, it's bombers in general at the moment.  Nerf scramble bombers without addressing the power of bomber spam, and you'll simply have everyone shift back to spamming Advent carrier caps.  Phase missiles don't need a nerf, but they do need to removed as a weapon type for some of the Visari units in order for others to see some use.  IMO switch fighters and flak to pulse weapons (also add a third tier of pulse weapon research) and switch bombers to wave.  Phase missiles would still be on enough units and defences to be worth researching upgrades, but they would no longer be the only weapon type you need to research with Visari.

This was a good thread, started by a strong player.  Then it started to go wrong when other players offered their opinions, not that it is much worse than any other thread in that respect.  However I will offer one myself, though it isn't based on balance as much as coherence: it seems odd to have fighters and flak use phase missiles, they are just not flak/fighter type weapons, whats the purpose of bypassing shields, why over-engineer?  Bombers, LRF, capital ships, starbases, yes.  But if scouts were nerfed because they were not intended to fight LRF, then flak and fighters should not use weapons that are effective against shields either- just as Pbhead said.  On Scramble Bombers, I would go back to v1.18, possibly with the multiple launch which seems an okay concept at reasonable levels of cooldown and duration- and also nerf the Halcyon slightly by reverting its extra squadrons to extra strikecraft, producing more tolerable squadron numbers for both ships. 

The developers were too busy to patch a major bug like the Illuminator bug for months.  The next patch will only bring another balance issue, or reveal one that existed previously.  We've only just emerged from the age of Tier 0 frigate darkness- and emerged into the dark world of the 3-Skirantra start.  Still a long way to go at Ironclad patch pace.  Tier 1 balance problems by 2011?

What the game needs is not our opinions but an intensive balance cycle where we test changes ourselves.  Another problem with threads like these is that the standard response is that the overall balance is what counts.  There is much to fix.  Its only those of us who both play and post that can fix it.  You up for a community patch Pb?   

If you read the accolades for the game in the developer journals, the praise is for the UI and the concepts, rather than the gameplay details.  The great UI won't be changed by a few text edits.  Ironclad have left us poor balance- but the opportunity to 'Make a game.  Make a great game.'  Is there another game with the same potential? 

I've only played Advent in this most recent version so I have zero experience with the old version of ADA.  However I would question whether there are any AEA Halcyons around in this version- and AEA is a very strong ability.  The old ADA may have been backweighted, but it wasn't weak, just not as good at low levels.  Even at L1 it was the equivalent of a more than 10% boost- thats more than many abilities, and all % boost abilities with levels are 'backweighted'.   The current version is a 50% boost at the second level....  Extra strikecraft seems to me to be far better than having a capital with 2 extra squadrons at level 3, especially the Halcyon with its TKP.  AEA does not enhance TKP so much that it becomes overpowered.  So I have to say that I strongly disagree also- the overboosted Halcyon is the major reason for the appearance of the dubious substance-improved Skirantra.

The Sova is a well-balanced capital however, as is the Kortul.  Players who concentrate on the failure of capitals late-game have to ask themselves whether they are using them correctly in late-game battles.

So at least you would agree that LF are preferred opposition for capital ships?  There were aspects of the scout/disciple option that improved the game.  This is where Ironclad were at fault, and why I have no confidence that they can come up with a wonder patch out of the blue when they are working on something else- when they couldn't patch the Iluinator bug for months while working on this game?  There's been no developer post for what, three months, since the sync bug?  Oh, right, they've suddenly changed.  Even the beta of the second expansion still had the Illuminator bug! The developers were clearly at fault in this instance, rather than just dumbing down the game by listening to the players.

However it was a pity that the scout/disciple era never got a fair test.  It was impossible for Vasari because of the poor LF and scouts, and impossible for TEC with serviceable LF and scouts because of the Illuminator bug, Cobalts would just melt as soon as Illuminators appeared and scouts were very much less effective.  The Ironclad response was a surprise, to claim that they never intended to have scouts fight LRF, and the changes they made to scouts might be another consideration for reversion by a community patch.  With improved Skirmishers and unbugged Illuminators.. who knows?

But is the concept that scouts should counter LRF not a design element of the game.  The Illuminator was originally an anti-capital LRF produced later and not so useful against LF.   I would suggest that the Seeker was as strong as it was because it was specifically intended to combat LRF, in order that the Advent LF should be more viable, because they were needed against enemy LF.  So that would mean that Ironclad were being somewhat disingenuous when they claimed that scouts were not to fight LRF, as in the original design and before 1.04 they would have been meant to.  However they never discuss design elements or changes with us, probably a good idea from their point of view.

I'd like 1.04 Illuminators back, they added variety to the factions and its somewhat quixotic to point out that they increase the danger to capitals with their 100% modifier when the Kanraks have phase missiles that give them an effective anti-capital modifier that vastly exceeds their supposed 75%.  Revert most of the scout changes too.  

If the developers are pondering a 1.20 version, and there is absolutely no indication that they are, then I would like them to consult their original vision- and their mythical spreadsheet for adjusting the game for the gameplay balance- because it makes sense.  Revert!  Limited resources!

However they also need to put enough work in on pirates and their complex relations system, both rushed in at the end of the beta and which have had exactly one patch, which is completely inadequate.  They never got mines right either.  The game has just never been settled enough for a 7-8 patch sequence that could get it close to final, the changes have just been too huge.  Look at the patches and testing the Starcraft II beta has required.  How complex is Starcraft, in comparison?   1.20?  1.30, maybe.... with a strong and committed play test group, and far more openness.