Why advent sucks now

Three seconds is far too short IMO, and would make Distortion Field nearly useless (only good for stopping channeling frigate abilities, of which there aren't too many).

The real hit to the Advent was a result of the Illuminator bug fix. Its weapons were doing "mystery" extra damage, which once fixed, revealed that the Illuminator was far less powerful.

I agree that advent are the weakest race right now; however it is by no means impossible to win as them.

My biggest problem with the advent is hull HP on their cap ships, while as Vasari and especially when TEC you can keep a cap ship in combat till its HP is low send it for repairs then send it to the combat again this strategy is almost worthless as Advent because repair platforms will only repair up to the max of hull HP making shield HP in this case worth less then hull.

As for fixing subverters I would prefer an affected ship limit say 4-6 ships with an increased duration about 25-30 seconds to a flat decrease in duration this will keep then useful but take away their ability to scale poorly with fleet sizes (i.e. freezing 150 HC with one sub).

Similar to the subverters are the Vasari hangers, in conjunction with subverters and moving star bases their ability to stop an unlimited number of strike craft makes an entrenched Vasari nearly impossible to take down. while nerfing subverters would help solve this problem I believe that this ability should also be nerferd either to a squad limit or increase the AoE and change the ability to slow movement and attack speed of enemy strike craft.

Also another balance change I would make is nerfing bomber strike craft any of the following would do in order of my preference 1. lower damage by 5-10% 2. make carriers slower or have less HP 3. adjust antimatter on carriers so its harder to build/rebuild bomber strike craft.

(P.S. sorry for my poor writing skills)

Personally I disagree that faster was the culprit.  No matter what speed you're on, assailants are going to be out the door considerably faster than illuminators, and if the distance is close enough they'll be on your doorstep just as you get the ability to produce illums.  If anything, I'd argue it would be worse on lower speeds because you can't afford to even buy illuminators in sufficient numbers after putting down all the cash. 

I think what really killed Advent was simply the shift from scout/LF to LRF based rushes.  Advent has by far the strongest scout and the strongest LF, but the scout is now non-viable, and the resulting dominance of LRF has made the disciple non-viable.  With the illuminator now the weakest LRF, this leaves Advent with essentially no viable openers.

The simple issue here, in my opinion, is that LRF are too dominant early and Advent has no good LRF-based opener.  If a carrier-based opener was viable, I don't think Advent would have a lick of trouble.  If scout/disciple were still viable (somewhere betweeen 1.19 and 1.181) I don't think Advent would be in any trouble.  If the illuminator were still the strongest LRF and capable of beating assailants and LRM's in equal cost, I don't think Advent would be in any trouble.  The problem is that NONE of these approaches are viable, so Advent has no option but lose in these sudden death rush scenarios.

Circle of life Think Advent need a viable opener, yes. How are the Defense vessels holding up? I haven't had chance to play since last patch I believe.

advent flak is fine but too easy to counter, the advent DO NOT have the strongest scout. their scouts now only have 2 dps. TEC have a stronger scout with 3 dps plus easy armor upgrades. and i mean 3 second stun to whole fleet it would leave subverters as still useful in numbers but it means that 3 or 4 cant keep a fleet stunned indefinetly

The primary strength of the Seeker was its relative toughness compared to the other scouts. Its unupgraded hull/shield amount (I believe) is 425/400, which before the most recent patch was equal to the Disciple's hull/shield. In fact, even now, this amount of hull/shield is matched by the other two scouts only after considerable upgrades have been done to hull/shield.

I don't think the speed change has much to do with it either.  Vasari had more of an advantage back before Fast Start because neutral economy might kick in very quickly with nearby asteroids while everyone was still trying to afford labs.  I think it is just the various ship balance changes and Illuminator bugfix have taken their toll.

Seekers can still shut down early Assailants.  I played a couple months ago and someone hit me with a Disciples and a crap ton of seekers.  I had started with an Assailant mix, but I had to completely switch to Skirmishers / Flak and fight at my repair bays for a while to turn the tide. Seekers can thwart an early rush, but they shouldn't be overbuilt because they become useless in the face of static defenses and starbases as the game progresses.

The big thing that switched the tide for Vasari / Advent was Vasari had been getting incremental buffs over the last few patches bringing their ships a bit more in line for the cost, and they got the Skirantra & Kortul buff.  Advent used to be ridiculous because Illuminators were broken and the Seeker was too effective.  Now that the Illuminator damage bug is fixed, they are not as useful until massed with Overseers.  Advent is back to being a slow methodical expansion race instead of a "rush" race, which is where the Vasari are usually best. 

This is just the way things go, the balance swings one way and then another.  I would agree that Advent is particularly disadvantaged towards Vasari, but I don't think that Vasari is way overpowered.  I played a few games as TEC and was able to handily beat skilled Vasari opponents.  I'm not sure who the smurf was who hit me with all the seekers / disciples, but he gave me a tremendous fight -- the outcome was not assured until we had fought for a while and I finally managed to fight off his fleet.

ha ha cykur im it was proly me was there a volc/ice(cant remember which) inbetween ur hw and his?

i remember battles of as many as 60 advent lfs and 40 vasari lfs flying around

{SB}=>Warfleet

Ha, no, you'd have remembered...I was playing under my name.  (Unless you recall me beating you a month or two ago....)

Agreed; Advent can get a lot of mileage out of flak, but they have nothing to pair it up with so it just gets countered.

This is incorrect.  The Seeker has 2.4 DPS, while the Arcova has 2.55; the difference is only a mere 6%, not the whopping 50% you think.  It's just the in-game interface is rounding one up and the other down.  Secondly, Seeker's base armor before upgrades is 2, while the Arcova's is 1, so you need those early upgrades just to make the TEC scout equal to the Advent in that regard.  It gets worse: while the Arcova does have 450 hull points to the Seeker's 400, the Seeker has a massive 425 shield points to the Arcova's puny 175.  The result is that the seeker is substantially tougher.

So yes, the Seeker remains the best scout by a longshot.  I continue to hold that the seeker was the only scout of the three that needed a nerf, and even then it was its amazing durability for cost that needed to be fixed.  It's basically as tough as a light frigate despite costing only about third as much.

I'd agree with Cykur that TEC is just fine against Vasari in the early-game.  In fact, I personally think TEC has the strongest overall rush game in the current version.  However, I think TEC has a lot of trouble handling the other two factions in the late game.  They can handle themselves just fine if they have a significantly larger fleet or a collection of high-level capital ships, but all things equal I don't think the TEC has the tools to compete effectively in a late-game scenario.

There is some truth to the faster speed setting favoring vasari.  Fast resources benefit those who can get the most resources and credits fastest.  As far as resources goes this means vasari with neutrals.  They get more bang for their neutral buck because they can get them fastest and keep them easier so it benefits vasari substantially more than it does advent and to a slightly lesser extent TEC due to earlier trade for them.  This is a point I have brought up in the past and was ignored.  I actually hosted a game a couple of months back insisting on fast rather than faster.  You would not believe the ranting and cussing I got because I would not change it to faster for the almost completely vasari room.  Fast was fine for them before diplomacy.  They ended up leaving my full 5s game to make their own.

As to the OP, advent sucks because advent has been nerfed repeatedly and vasari buffed repeatedly due to a few vasari players whining incessantly while the devs were still listening.  Vasari have numerous OP things that they can utilize.  They have moveable and tough as nails SB, phasic traps to prevent any number of SC from functioning to get rid of said SB, subverters to neutralize any amount of fleet, phase missles to skip the heavy shields of advent on practically EVERY UNIT , bomber spam/lrf to kill caps quicker than you can get the cap away even when you are already pointed at the edge of the well or thin the bombers out, kostura that wipe out any fleet and prevent them from leaving to get away with enough of them, easy resources with neutrals.... I could go on and on.  The funny thing is they have had all this stuff for a while.

I assume you do not mean overseers because thats vasari.  Domina subjugators suck so you can't mean them either.  The only support cruiser worth a damn for advent is guardians.  Vasari are great at rushing but they are great at everything else too.  Once entrenched, they are practically impossible to dig out due to SB and phasic traps.  They can then strike with impunity with kosturas or fleet or both.  You can't be slow and methodical with them because they will continue to use their huge bag o tricks against you.

[_]-Greyfox

In the case of advent vs vasari... flak frigs would work well... if it werent for the basic spreading out of damage that flacks have +the healing ability of the skirantra.  Flacks just dont focus fire very well, and so the skirantra just eats it up... and of couse, the flack's side banks will target the rediculous quantities of bombers first... which further increases the skirantra's ability to tank the flacks damage. 

but advent flack have the best dps/fleet supply for flacks in the game.

but... if you do pull out a shizznits of advent flack... and the enemy does counter with skrimishers... just laugh your arse off, and bring out heavys. he brings out flack, you should be able to outtank/dps with decent guardian/progen support... and bring out heavies.  he bomber spams... well... he will always bomber spam.     

Serously, though Advent heavies are soo much better than the current illums... though not very compatible with standard battle-ball tactics.

Yeah, I meant Guardians, not Overseers.  And I basically agreed that the Advent vs Vasari match up was not favorable.  I have still done pretty well as TEC vs Vasari

A couple patches ago before Vasari got their stats re-adjusted for Diplomacy, Advent was ridiculous due to the Illuminator damage bug.  Illuminators didn't have a slight advantage like they should have on paper -- due to the bug, they used to WTF slaughter the other LRFs.  Seekers and Guardian repulse just added insult to injury.  The only viable Vasari strategy back then was to use starbases at key worlds before you were overwhelmed.  Things have gone too far the other way, but I would not characterize the old balance as being good either.  This is just how things go, they tend to flip flop due to a few changes happening in different places at one time.

Someone should head up a fan made balance mod.Its the only way the game will get balanced.Seems like devs are done patching it or am I wrong?Its been 6 or 7 months since I played and looks like things are exactly the same.Still think carriers need slight buff vs lrf.

Apparently there is to be a patch for the second expansion in November, though we have been warned that this is intended to be for second expansion features only, and that if anything else was to be changed it would be up to Ironclad.

One of the developers was supposed to have put some time into the game in the summer but nothing appears to have come of that as yet?

We are promised a beta phase for the new patch, which would be excellent for a balance patch, but if its just the single player stuff like pirates and AI relations, then it may prove something of a disappointment.  It's good to have work ongoing on the game, but if a patch comes out and the current balance issues are still there, well it's not going to make me want to play anymore than the current version.  Single player stuff I can mod to my own taste as I please.

I'm just so tired of 3 skirantra/assailant/starbase play off scarcely any tech.  The game has four tech trees, and apparently endless complexity if a minimum of effort were put into balancing it.  A beta phase could be that opportunity.  Its not as if it takes any more effort than text file edits- if you're going to recompile anyway.   

I think the best approach to producing a balance patch would be the approach that was used to create 1.18:  a centralized community effort to discuss and compile opinions (the "Patch Stats Change Forum").  We talk about the key issues in the current version, generate some potential solutions, then vote on which ones we like and dislike. I don't have the time to maintain such a thread, but if someone else could do it, that would be phenomenal.

This was the original; you can see a lot of that made it into 1.18, and if you read through the discussion several ideas that weren't even voted upon made it into the patch:

https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/356646/

The illuminator was far from overwhelming even with the bug despite what some may say.  At that patch, it was more prominent to disciple and seeker spam(which is a gay strategy but effective) anyways as advent.  It rarely got to illums if you played against certain players(JJ, Star player).  A vasari SB stopped illum spam cold unless its a huge fleet with guardian and progen backup and little to no opposing fleet.  Illums suck against any single target which makes SB difficult to deal with using them(half the dps literally with only 50 percent damage being front).  Don't get me wrong....they were great at taking out frigates if managed right and all side beams firing but hardly an unstoppable juggernaut.

[_]-Greyfox

That's my point, Vasari's only viable strategy back then was to build starbases.  In team games, you made sure you had 1, maybe 2 Vasari to build starbases and contest neutrals.  Early in the game, most Vasari just staked out territory and had a small raiding fleet because going toe to toe against an equally experienced player was pretty suicidal.  I played a fair amount of 1v1, and as Vasari couldn't win against a half decent Advent player because they would force me on the defensive and proceed to box me in behind my starbases, assuming I got one up in time. 

Of course if you take the Illuminator into a non-optimal fight it won't do well.  Most mid-game LRF heavy fleets got slaughtered by the equivalent supply of Illuminators.  Because of this, you had to use flak / strikecraft, because using your own LRF was suicidal.  I never had a problem with one LRF being better, but the Illuminator fleets took very few losses when using the "drive thru" tactics. 

Unfortunately, the the bug fix has hurt them a bit too much now.  I don't deny Advent needs something vs Vasari.  I'm just saying it wasn't all golden before.

Illum spam back then was actually rather effective vs vasari starbase if you micro them to get the side beams to hit...

This is due to the illum's decent modifier vs structures, and the vasari starbase having very very wierd damage modifiers (first 2 are anti-heavy and anti-mod... which does crap vs light)

You needed Guardian/Progen to tank a Vasari starbase safely... but let's be honest, that's even more the case now.

Unfortunately though you are fighting against a race that can skip shields and take out caps with ease.  Guardian hull is paper thin too.  Assailants outrange push and so do bombers.  Some of those guardians need to be using the shield buff too rather than push to enable any amount of tanking the SB.  This assumes you can even afford to build a progen considering you are guaranteed to get at least 2 skirantra from a vasari.  It also assumes that you want it alive after 1 or 2 shield restores because sitting it in the middle of an attack makes it prime target to get vasari sniped.  Progen is slow for a cap anyways and all caps take forever to turn around even when there isn't a fleet or 2 in front of it to slow it down further.  Building anything other than a halcyon or 2 and you are instantly gimped against a vasari.  Even then its rough and you have to be ready to jump out at a seconds notice to a repair in the next grav well.

[_]-Greyfox

One issue that has only been touched upon so far is that Vasari flak and fighters use phase missiles as well.  I can understand that phase missiles are a Vasari specialty, but the normal phase missiles are slow torpedo- like weapons, how can you manage to use those for fighters and flak?  It's just stupid when fighters can take down a cap ship, whats the point of bombers then?  Unless you get vast numbers of free ones, of course.  Yet the starbases, with all their weapons capacity, don't have phase missiles, for no apparent reason.  So much of the game seems entirely arbitrary, especially the combat system.

What the game has always tremendously lacked is a good method of punishing spams, except LF spams.  What is the counter to a phase missile researcher supposed to be?  Two tech labs gets you almost half again the weapons power, and the only direct defensive ability is the Kol's Adaptive Shield..?  I'm just not sure that a game where one faction seems deliberately to have been designed to counter another faction and be vulnerable to a third can have balance.  Factions should have different specific strengths and weaknesses compared to each other, not be generally weak to one faction and strong against another?

Oh, I'm well aware.  Advent vs Vasari is just a horribly lopsided match currently.  You don't see many people arguing about that.  Still, guardians with repulsion are pretty much Advent's only ace in the hole. 

Agree with you on Halcyon; totally mandatory currently.

Where fighters with phase missiles will kill a capital ship, bombers with phase missiles will annihilate it.

Yes they do, it's their second weapon upgrade.

TEC has hoshikos, Vasari has Overseers.  They actually work quite well for keeping units alive under focus fire, and because their healing kicks in even before shields are down when faced with phase missiles, they actually do a good job.  Still doesn't change the fact that phase missiles are the best weapon in the game.

And this from an individual who complained that the TEC turret was 'artificially gimped' because the range isn't quite as good as the others until it is upgraded!  You know I considered you somewhat insensitive, until you cried real tears over the TEC turret.  Vasari starbases do not have outstandingly the best Vasari weapon when first built, then.  I doubt that this diminishes the point that weapons choices seem somewhat arbitrary?

Both Hoshikos and Overseers are higher up the tech tree, but if you propose them as a counter to phase missiles then why not consider repair bays a counter?  The same would seem to apply, that the heal would begin earlier.  This could also be a disadvantage though.  I wonder if with a little micro phase missiles could be claimed to counter Hoshikos?  You could allocate two-three attackers to spread fire and get the Hoshikos to use up their antimatter on ships that had very little damage?

Spread fire is usually a waste in Sins, because of the mitigation mechanic, as its threshold seems too low.  If it was raised then you might get the situation where phase missiles were good for focus fire but not as good for overall damage output, I don't know whether this was the intention?  I'm not a fan of mitigation anyway, it seems to have convoluted logic and to be much inferior to a more standard method of applying negative modifiers when there are more than two ships engaging the same target and allowing fire bonuses when ships aren't under fire.  Also, if ships weren't so readily healed in combat focus fire would be less essential.  Warships in naval combat rarely concentrated on one opponent, because unengaged ships fired far more accurately.

And what, remark in particular are you talking about?  Turrets are practically identical for all three races until you hit their higher level upgrades, with the exception of the TEC turret which has inferior range for no apparent reason other than to tax the player who wants to use turrets.  There really is no explanation to this, and it comes across as arbitrary and needless when we could have gotten something cool (a faction with longer range turrets) instead of one faction with gimped turrets that has to pay a tax to reach the status quo.

First of all, the situation is entirely different from turrets.  The TEC and Advent starbases are comparable, but the Vasari starbase with its ability to move is fundamentally different.  People are forced to face Vasari starbases toe-to-toe, while this is virtually unheardof against upgraded Advent and TEC starbases.  The role of the starbases are completely different. 

Beyond that, the weapons upgrades are mostly the same as the other factions, compare for yourself.

The basic starbase weapons are Laser, Plasma, and Pulse Gun for TEC, Advent, and Vasari respectively.  For TEC and Vasari, these are their "low-end" level weapons used by light frigates and support cruisers, and are completely equivalent.  Advent uses their heavy cruiser's weapons upgrade instead, which is really only a benefit because the Destra is Advent's only viable combat unit this version.  Back when they were illuminator-based, this was actually no benefit at all.

The second starbase upgrade is different.  TEC gets their "beam" type weapon which is theoretically upgradeable, but in practice it only affects the starbase and the Kol's frontal weapons, so it effectively never gets upgraded.  Advent gets unupgradeable "psionic" attacks, while Vasari gets unupgradeable disintegration attacks.  None of these are favourable weapons types.

The third starbase upgrade is upgradeable once again for all three factions.  TEC gets their favourable "missile" type upgrade which is used by bombers and LRM's, the Vasari gets their godly phase missile weapons, and Advent gets their generic laser-type weapons.  If anything, Vasari has the best weapons lineup by this point thanks to phase missiles.

You're construing me as saying phase missiles are balanced.  I never said anything of the sort, merely that you do have some counter-measures against them.  The fact is that phase missiles hit harder than any other weapons upgrades and rip through capital ship hull in particular. 

Repair platforms also work, but I can't take them with me when I'm going on the offensive.

I actually don't know what the targeting threshold is for the hoshiko.  My gut feeling is that this is a waste of micromanagement; if the TEC has enough repair power to tank you, he's probably going to win that battle or at very least deal disproportionate casualties to his incurred losses.