I never once advocated playing offensively. The absence of overusing static defenses does not make a strategy offensive in nature.
All right... now I understand you....
But what strategy would you suggest?
This is indeed true, I never contested that the tec rebels are better offensively
I don't disagree. I am fully in support of tec loyal buffs.
but those buffs should be focused on making a realistic strategy viable- any buffs that made it viable to overinvest in static defenses and starbases will make the faction overpowered for a player not making that error and puttting down the minimum in defenses necessary to hold the line(and investing the money they save into their economy or novaliths).
What would be your suggestion for a viaable strategy with TEC Loyalists?
"The minimum of defenses to hold the line"
From my experience static defenses do a poor job at holding the line. Turrets are generaly worthless, leaving aside the Vasari PM turret with extremely op Disruptor Nanites. That leaves Hangar defenses an starbases supported by repair platforms.... but this is not what I would call a minimum of defenses? Could you perhaps explain in further details?
The situations in which 2 do the job and one wouldn't are indeed rare- hence the reason twin fortress isn't enough of a gamechanger to make the faction viable. AT present as you say one of the only real such situations is when you want to cover multiple phase lains with BRB or want to have a real starbase and access to a BRB.
That doesn't change the fact that it's a bad idea to build 2 starbases at a location which doesn't require that much investment to be held.
Again I don't really disagree with you. The only point I ever really disagreed with was your claim of "slower expansion even without TAR." The tec loyals should be doing everything in their power to expand early- just like everyone else.
Allright, now I understand what you mean.
That's the thing: leave out the conquer. There's no reason the tec loyals can't do the explore-expand steps just as well as the rebels in a non-TAR situation.
The only difference is that they settle into a defensive role once the borders of their empire are established rather then beginning to conquer adjacent enemies.
So now we have to think about ways for them to hold those worlds. As they are not particularly good at "conquer" that means they suffer more from loosing planets as they may not be capable of reclaiming them. I think we need something that makes it considerable more difficult/far more expensive for the enemy to conquer a TEC Loyalist world.
Honestly despite our long quote-war I think we by and larger agree with eachother. The only point I ever really contested was the tec loyals having slow early expansion- they don't if the player doesn't overinvest in static defenses early, a mistake may tec loyals players tend to make.
All I have really been arguing is that since expanding fast suits them just as well as every other faction, the buffs should be focused on the assumption they are defending with minimal tactical structures, as will be true for much of the game.
To war, death and glory!
On a more serious note what strategy would you suggest with them? There is very little below a starbases that holds of a serious assault.
And of course one of the biggest issues as you seem to agree is that the Ankylon is frankly underwhelming as compared to the ragnarov- and I still think a few significant buffs to the ankylon would go a long way.
Indeed. There is no technical reason for a TEC Loyalist player to expand any slower than a TEC Rebels. Until titans or TaR are used they can play almost identically.
You cannot balance a game like Sins for 5v5 situations.
Why not? There really isn't much difference there. Jumping Orkies and phase missiles are unbalanced in 5v5s as they are in 1v1s. I don't remember if you play multiplayer regularly but suggesting those things aren't OP seems ridiculous.
There is the huge difference of team synergies..... see my example with the Eradica supported by hoshikos and Overseers.
I play multiplayer regularly... of course they were OP! I just played advocatus diaboli in showing you that 5v5 games can mitigate several balancing issues from "OP" to remotly bearable. Also even more than 1v1 there is a even higher dependency on luck.
Vasari Loyalists are borderline op... as a Vasari in general. But in 5v5 their are bearable because
- they dont do a great job at disposing enemies until late in the game... often time the game ends earlier because their Team took heavy losses
- Vasari are op... but not so op that they could handle 3v1 or worse. Even the Maw can only eat so many carriers and there is a ammount of allied bomber wings that makes sure you dont use it more than once.
- Most of the time they dont make it into late game where they can steamroll about anything,
- More often, they will have a mirror enemy that is Vasari too... mitigating them.
Yes I realize there will be difficulties balancing the game entirely on 5v5s, as having players capable of developing or rushing techs without issue in large games was basically the main reason Stripped to the Core was so bad. But balancing the game purely in 1v1 or FFA is going to greatly reward military prowess at the expense of everything else, while in any other game mode those "everything elses" might be game winning. Again, we don't deny the Loyalists need a bit of a boost, but you're seem especially harsh on the advantages they have while thinking the TEC Rebels have some base advanage besides TaR and the Ragnarov that they don't have.
Balancing is a very difficult thing. nobody will argue against that. And stripped to the core did work in 1v1... it was a very risky strategy but it was doable..... all you needed was 2 military labs for Orky.... then rush STTC,s strip all but one planet and then crush the enemy with a fleet 3 times the size of his. If the enemy early game pressure was not 110 % for what reasons ever, the enemy was dead.
This a a war game.... military prowess naturally plays a very important role. Furthermore most people want to have a active part of the game they are playing. As for any other game, I dont know any RTS game that has a - supporting faction - that is good at supporting but nothing else. And especially no such a faction in any game that is choosen by players regularly. Sitting at home and supporting your team with feed can be an important job.... but to come back to Sins this job is not particularly funny. Sure it gives you a nice feeling to support your team.... but it will rarely beat the fun of your 27 kilometer long rail gun beating the living shit out of the enemy and as such unless it offers very good support (which would lead to TEC Loyalists being a must have in team games which I not necessarly find a good idea) the faction will get choosen less and lesser. If it offers good support it would be at best players choice... but not players darling. Do you really want that instead of arguing just about team balancing and captains people in the future will argue what poor guy of their team should be forced to choose the - boring - support faction? I dont want that, I want that people ca choose their favourite faction in team games.... without hurting their team.
There is also the issue of random starting positions and changing game conditions.... your support faction may find itself in a very uncomfortable spot any time in the game.... and then it needs to stand..... on an halfway equal levels with all other factions.
In short... making TEC Loyalists an team support only faction is imho not the way to go.
BTW... currently they are not particularly well doing said job.... an allied gravity well is treated as a neutral gravity well by the Ankylon... meaning its power is not larger at the support of allies than it is on the offensive.
When it really comes down to it, if SC2 cannot be balanced for 1v1, Sins won't be either. The best we can do is come up with a "line of best fit" of balance that works for as many different styles of games as possible. Thus the goal isn't to be perfectly balanced in every situation, but be acceptable in any type of game people play.
I dont know anything about the balancing of Starcraft 2 so.....
Balancing is a very long term process and I dont think that there are more than 2 or 3 games worldwide that are entirely balanced, SC 1 being one of them.
There are however several games that are mostly balanced.... and this what we should aim at with Sins.
Again... you cannot balance an RTS which different faction for team games.... see Starcraft 1.... normally the early game is entirely balanced..... however if you support protoss early game with Terran Medics this combination becomes nearly unstoppable - in team games. Although it is balanced. Nobody screams to nerf medics into oblivion because of it. Some team combination are always going ot be more powerful than others.... because you cannot "fix" them without breaking the normal game balancing.
And even if you like me are not a fan of 1v1.... only in direct comparsion can it be decided of a faction/unit or strategy is op.
Vasari are OP lategame... because they have a hard counter to anything Advent can field in late game.... Now... since Phase Missiles are less effective against TEC, does that mean that Vasari are not OP and that Advent are UP in lategame?
No, it doesnt. Actually Advent are superior to TEC in lategame by a wide margin.... but then Vasari are highly superior to Advent in late game.... TEC has trouble against both but it is not screwed as Advent are against Vasari and so actually in longer games with all races may be the superior choice.
It doesnt help me a bit with Advent to know that Hoshikos and Overseers could save my Eradica from phase missile pulverisation.... because I am Advent... I dont have Hoshikos and Overseers.... so I need something of my own to stand a a change. If I dont have anything on that account that makes Advent UP against Vasari. And that means it needs to changed.
Because you cannot balance a faction arround needing crutches from other races. You can make it so that it does proft more from certain allies... like an TEC Advent Team where the TEC supports the Advents eco to allow the Advent to built a even mightier fleet. There is no argument I think that both TEC and Advent need to be capable of standing on their own - which if you leave the remaining balancing problems aside for a moment... they mostly are.
I hope I explained my point well enough.
they should buff disruption matrix, and make all defense structures and upgrades 50% cheaper
that could solve the bad economy. and let the starbase be put down faster in enemy lines and let it bomb planets.
this would let them go for a "Secure, Assimilate, Develop" style of play
Cheaper defense buildings dont solve the problem. The problem is not their price.. their problem is their limited effectivity.
Yes, Disruption matrix needs a good buff.... for one a considerable range increase and far more important a duration increase.
17 seconds of abilities disabled doesnt buy you much more than 25 seconds - even with group shield against the very powerful AOE abilies other factions can field.
I am fine with its current damage level... it should be an defensive weapon, not a second chastic burst. But it needs to make the enemies life a lot more miserable.
The Advent starbase can already bombard planets with Meteror Storm.... it is still not used in this capacity. Being unable to move makes an offensive starbase very easy to stop as an effective building position will put it into harms way.
Besides, we really dont need a second Orky. What we need is
1. a starbase that is superior compared to others
2. Something to force they enemy into running into just that starbase.... Novaliths were meant to be that... they are just not up to the job.
they should significantly buff the titan attack, including buff the friendly well attack and the enemy well attack
argonevs should also get flak cannons against bomber spam for loyalist only, and they should get a small tribute from a newly colonized planet. the tribute will need a tech called Trader Reunification or something like that. it will be tier 2 with no prereqs
Love the flak idea and I find the tribute idea interesting.
sorry for quad post, but i think they should also get 1 turret and repair platform on each planet they have for free without using any tactics slots
You can always edit your posts
However without placing them on the right spot they are not going to be of much value. Nor is one turret going to do you any good. I usually end up with building just one anyway as I have just one tactical slot remaining on my fortified worlds.
First let's compare titans. Both advent titans are better than both of the TEC titans. The Coronata will eat a Ragnarov for breakfast all by itself even when the Raganarov is backed by a fleet. The same is pretty much true against the Ankylon it just might take a little longer since it tanks a little better, espescially on the defensive. The Eradica is more or less the same story just for a different reason, as it demolishes the enemy fleet first instead of the capships and titan. Meanwhile the vasari have the choice of titan that warps across the gravity well straight into your fleet to swallow it, OR titans? we don't need no stinking titans, we have mobile starbases bahaha equipped with a whole lot the best weapon in the game, phase missiles.
Yes... but the same ragnarov might have scattershooted your fleet into oblivion just a few seconds ago.... now it will deal with any of your capitalships and then at least concentrate the entire firepower of its fleet onto the only thing remaining.... your Coronata.
Fighting against a Coranata means to try to say outside of the range of Supression Arua.... an easier task with the Ragnarov.
But yes, fighting against an enemy fleet with Titan makes the Anklyon look very poor... even on own territory.
And while a late game advent fleet will school a late game TEC fleet, it's hard to call their fleet "best" when their extreme vulnerability to phase weaponry puts them at a very significant disadvantage against the vasari- who also have a strong late game fleet and a better economy to replace any losses with.
Quoted for truth!
Vasari have their tactical trickery, but they'll win in a straight fleet battle every bit as easily as the advent. You rely on your superior economy and force them into a war of attrition- same as the advent.
This is the second important reason after phase missiles why Vasari are absoluty murderous against Advent.
They have a better military and a better economy.
For Advent vs Vasari to be balanced the military superiority of the Vasari in late game has to go. And of course phase missiles need a hard nerf.
How it should be:
novaliths reduce trade income by 100% at the targeted gravity well for 30 minutes- it can cause economiic damage on a wide scale if you spread shots around even if the enemy relies chiefly on trade routs.
While notably, the damage done is not enough.... and most importantly not high enough to force your enemy into attacking you at a time he really dont want to do that. This often means that can can continue to build up his fleet without any worries or delays.
In fact the addition of titans has brought the TEC(well the rebels anyway)lategame closer to the other races then it ever has been before being that the Ragnarok is on par with any of the other race's titans(by comparison to how TEC research, frigates, & capitalships wane a bit into the late game).
On the original topic, part of the TEC loyal's issue is IMO that their basic tactics lexicon runs counter to the core TEC battle strategies.
Yes, that is indeed one major problem.