Hey everyone, I just came from modding the star bases to move and from increasing their range. The moving thing was OK, however it wasn't what I imagined. I did like increasing their range for this gave them the defensive capability they needed. Now covering the whole gravity well was way to much, I just doubled their range(Yes even the Vasari) and it worked perfectly. If you just placed them well then you could defend quite well. This was tested with all races/factions.

Why the heck would you double the Starbases' ranges when they can already move?

Timmaigh, the speed at which an orkulus moves allows it to be properly micro'd to intercept a fleet.  No other starbase will be able to do that nearly as good.  So, in all reality, orkulus speed as it is currently would confer a "black and white" example of superiority.  The vasari advantage would be that an upgraded vasari starbase would be like a "titan" with its ability to intercept a fleet if micro'd properly.

Using your argument in another sense, we could compare the advent's starfish to the ogrovs.

The ogrov is a better ship that shines, even though the advent also have a building destroyer of their own.  One justifies the cost to build because it is a better buy for the cost.  This is intentionally designed.

Using a real life example, using your logic:

If Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime can lift something, and you can lift that same thing(no matter how heavy), then you and arnold are practically the same physically.  lol.

HOW good something is at performing its purpose, and to what magnitude, is critical.  After all, Arnold's "black and white" superiority to you would be that he'd win an iron man competition and win bodybuilding competitions.  Yet you could still lift the same gallon of milk.

There are always shades of grey, and at the same time certain shades will be better for different tactical situations.  Instead of having vasari be all black, and TeC and advent be all white, shades of grey would make it far more interesting, as long as those shades of grey confer to a direct tactical advantage for each shade.

So, with the Original post being implemented, here is how things would stand:

Vasari tactical advantage:

-Mobile heavily upgradable, heavy hitting starbase o' death.  Nothing's changed.  Best defensive starbase available.

TEC tactical advantage:

-Slow moving bombs, ability to set up gravity wells with surprise attacks.  Using the "Red Button" would be more suspenseful for the player experience because they would be able to slowly inch towards their opponent.  The suspense would build, and either the other player wouldn't react, or they would.  Either way, you feel like you have a lot more tactical options at your disposal.  Also, the TEC would have a lot more justification to use these starbases on the attack.

Advent tactical advantage:

-Ability to use their strong starbase abilities to a greater degree of efficacy.  Advent starbases would be a lot more fearsome, and their cost would become justified.  Also, Advent would have a lot more justification to use their starbases offensively(building in the enemy gravity well with fleet support).

Overall, more siege tactics become possible, opening up the game's paths to victory.

Each race would have their own effective version of the siege.

Giving every player the ability to do a strong siege is necessary, because the player experience of besieging a planet is a complex one.  Many options, many choices to make.  This equates to interesting gameplay for many of the sins target market.

Moving starbases is like picking up the gallon of milk.

Winning the Ironman competition would be like the orkulus having the fastest movement speed.

I'm talking about different levels of balance, something that has been a part of sins game design from the start.

I don't "feel" they are, I have tested hundreds of times along with man other players.  They are already like "arnold clones" because the starbases perform the exact same defensive function.  What is imbalanced is the MAGNITUDE of that function.  The most important factor affecting starbase defensive magnitude is the area of space that a starbase has under its control.  The orkulus is 4x-5x more effective in this regard, allowing the vasari to turtle their worlds FAR more effectively.  This leads to large exploitation of the race, especially in rebellion.

With the implimentation of my original post, the starbases would be on equal ground.  Using the aforementioned example, arnold's competitors would have their legs untied for the distance run.  At least there would be a better ironman competition, even if arnold is going to win anyways. 

Advent starbases would feel like Jet li, because they could defend their gravity wells effectively.  They currently feel like Bob Dole.

TEC starbases would feel like Bruce Willis because they can take a beating while they slowly approach you, about to blow your fleet up.

They could also be used offensively with some serious efficacy, to give the TEC another endgame attrition weapon.  Sure it would be scary, yet its not unbeatable.  Sure would give TEC loyals a buff, imo. 

Well, sorry you're depressed m8.  do some exercise, eat some vitamin B complex tablets and go outside.  Hydrate yourself well, and i'm sure you'll be feeling better in no time.

I don't want to have you agreeing with me, after all .

get back to me when you are your ol' self.

About mobile starbases:

Although I don't think these ideas will happen on the official game:

1) Merge colony pods and trade ports in a single upgrade. It would be a tri-state ability button where it can focus on population only, trade only, or both. There is a ramp-up time for the mode to become fully effective.

2) There would be one additional ability slot available, for one more skill:

Advent: Teleport starbase. Has a very long cool down, costs a lot of AM. A second upgrade level halves the cooldown and AM cost. Additional techs add extra effects to the teleport:

Meteor on Teleport / advanced meteor on Teleport

If SB has the meteor storm upgrade, First level triggers a mateor storn on the previous starbase position. second upgrade also triggers a meteor storm on the destination location. This ability trigger does not cost AM, just the Teleport costs AM.

Confusion on Teleport / Advanced Confusion on Teleport

Same as Meteor on Teleport, if SB has the Confusion upgrade.

TEC: Tractor beams. Instead of moving star bases, TEC will bring the enemies closer. It's easier than moving that metallic monolith of a SB.

2 per level, 2 levels. same ranges as BRB.

Tractor beams can pull frigates and cruisers towards the SB, while doubling the ships cooldown time and halving all its passive regeneration.

Capital ships get its movement and turning speed reduced by 50% and are unable to jump while being tractored.

Titans have their movement and turning speed reduced by 25%, and jump calculation time is doubled, cumulative with the jump disruptor tactical structure.

Additional tech research enables the SB to assimilate AM, shield and hull of ships destroyed when targeted by tractor beam.

Vasari: 

2 upgrade levels. Each upgrade add one more weapon bank for each of the weapon upgrades and reduces weapon cooldown by 10%. uninventive, but Vasari are the combat race.

Tech upgrade grants the additional effect of credit income to the omnomnom SB ability, which regenerates the SB by eating destroyed ship debris.

Very nice ideas. Especially the part with Teleporting/Tractor Beams as a unique alternatives to conventional movement style of Orkulus.

EDIT> I would use the additional ability slot in case of Orkulus for the phase engines upgrade - at least in case of Vasari Rebels.

I would say that most people, who opposed you in this thread, did it not cause they are strictly against buffing the other starbases per se, they just did not want it to happen the way you suggested (as it would obviously take away part of what makes the Orkulus unique). Now Joe´s ideas kinda bypass that issue and that makes them about trillion times more acceptable.

No, Sareth, you did not convince me over time that there is a "necessary change of balance needed to occur". if you really think this is true, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Not once did i question your ideas from the balance standpoint, i simply did not care about that. I admit i never played the game enough to be qualified to judge, whether your ideas are for the good or not, but again, it was never my intention to question their influence on balance. 

What you called nuanced form, is actually what has all the merit to me, as it takes apart acceptable balancing ideas from the unacceptable ones - the acceptable ones being those, which do not interfere with faction asymmetry and keeping the unique factor intact. If you really cant see this, i am sorry.

When it comes to my own ideas, i think i had my own threads on few things i imagined to be different, mostly related to Vasari Loyalists and again, they were more about the design than balance. You did not care about that, so you would not know. Anyway, maybe you dont realize this, but there are lot of different people in the world with different kind of strengths and weaknesses. There is actually big part of psychology handling this area, just look for various personality tests, like Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Enneagram, etc...

The point is, some people are inventive, others function as counselors - and that might be difference between you and me. You offer idea, i offer different perspective to that idea - the perspective, you were so quick to neglect in your haste for the ultimate balance. I am not trying to fit myself into the role of inventor in this regard, i may not even have talents for that...instead i am fine just steer others into what i believe is the right direction, without the need to think the details for them... if you think this is somehow lame, well then....

Finally, if you think i am prideful, you need as well to work on your manner of judging other people characters. Actually, when you say i create conflict by negating your ideas, you make absolutely clear that you inherently perceive opposing views as conflicting - that is hardly right attitude toward "discussion" you tried to bring with this thread. 

Ah Sareth, Sareth... you come so hard on me, not because i dont understand game mechanics, but because i am  pointing out your inability to understand and accept other peoples opinions and perspectives. You can lie to yourself, this is not the case, but you cant lie to me.

I looked at Brazilian Joes idea, i even gave him karma for that - he integrated "my" perspective into your idea, that is what i liked and what were you desperately unable to do, because for that you would have to get off your high horse. But i suppose calling other people idiots, cowards and their opinions baseless is infinitely more easier than actually take their concerns into account and admit there may be better solution than the one you presented, even though this solution is not yet exactly known. Sometimes I do not have to know the right answer to see how your answer is wrong - so i point it out, hoping perhaps you would reconsider - but no, you would not.

Thankfully, someone like Joe would, and if he did so at least partially after reading what me and the others, who opposed you for the same reasons as me, had to say, we  made undeniable contribution to his approach, even though we did not come with that approach ourselves.

I am not saying now, this is what exactly happened,  most likely he was aware of the shortcomings of your idea himself without need to read anything, but still its a distinct possibility.

Bottom line, the only reason why i still talk to you and did not give up like RiddleKing and others is, that i am momentarily fairly bored and i am fascinated by your immaturity. 

And so another thread bites the dust...

Oh, it is, one for you. I do not expect you to take anything out of it right now, though. But i have no worries, you will learn humility with age.

Topic is boring as fuck anyway, everything what could be possibly said, was already said. I decided to consider the Brazilian Joes idea to be its conclusion.