You would get dominated if you tried that online I reckon.

Thing is though, skirms have such low DPS that they can't even act as harassers. The enemy can just ignore them. Its not as if skirms can actually do anything.

Skirms are pathetic but no other Vasari unit is super strong to compensate. If sentinels could destroy SC super super fast, then I could understand that Vasari get a far less efficient way to deal with the carriers themselves. That is balance by race.

Same goes for TEC, yet TEC get good scouts, good LFs and good LRFs.

what about the kortul? That ship pretty much owns any other cap, and it disables sc.

The new Vasari cap ships are great and the Kortul is uber, but is no substitute for a good fleet. I'm not saying that the skirm should be a carbon-copy of the other LFs, I just think that it should fulfill its role competitively.

I've actually been meaning to try mass Kortul.  Never had the courage to actually attempt it in multiplayer, though, and of course anything will beat an AI...

Against the AI, or a sucky human who will give you all the time in the world, you could have done the same with a skirantra and one skirmisher.  Hell, you could have done it with the skirantra and a scout.

Reintegration doesn't come until late.

They have the mothership as well, which heals shields (in most cases, a better ability than healing hull), and a shield cruiser as well.

First point, the overseer comes very late in the tech tree.  Second point, many people (myself included) believe that the overseer sucks balls.  Oh sure, the abilities you list sound good on paper (reactive armor, blah bla), but in truth the thinigs require way too much micro, they turn as slow as mollassass in January (which affects their ability to heal), they drop like flies in any gravity well that has fighters (I learned that the hard way playing against Cykur), they are expensive, and they require 4 labs to get.  Juxtapose that against the TEC hoshi, which requires no micro, isn't affected by turn rate because it heals unidirectionally, is cheap, and requires 3 labs to get, and you will see that the vasari in every way are saddled with an inferior support cruiser that is more expensive and requires more tech labs to boot.

I'd like to see you try to rely on this ship against a quality human opponent.

Well I agree the unit shouldn't be balanced around the idea of a skirmisher rush.  Arguably, however, it might should be balanced around defending against other races' light frig/scout rushes.  Also, it needs to be able to counter what light frigates are supposed to counter (carrier cruisers, support cruisers, etc).  In the past, I have had a significantly difficult if not impossible task countering such cruisers with skirmishers.  Now... I'm open-minded enough to accpet the idea of a skirmisher that can't do anything, provided there is some "racial balance" somewhere which balances the vasari out.  But the racial balance certainly isn't to be found in support cruisers, lrf, flak, etc.

I do think the vasari superweapon is better than the other superweapons (things you will rarely, if ever, see in an online game).  And phase stabilizers are great.  But I'm not sure that these aspects are good enough to balance out their poor ships.

Returning Armada was nerfed too much.  Buff that, and we may have more "racial" (vs. unit to unit) balance.  People would have a good reason to play vasari.  They could say "yeah, it's a risk, and I may be down early and midgame, but if I can make it to Returning Armada...."  I have to admit, those were fun days.

Well, i dunno if this'll sway anyones opinions, but I made a mod that buffed the vas. skirmishers according to what the majority seems to be demanding, and it really made this race unbalanced. I also just modded their reint. ability, and that seemed to do the trick of not making them op yet making them much more viable. Granted, I only had three players, and they weren't exactly pros, and this was a couple months ago; so it's prob. time for another go at it. If any one is serious about improving this unit w/o making it overpowered, I'd gladly devote the time to programming.

You need two Weapons Labs, and the first three Hull Reasearches, that's hardly something i'd concider late-game.

However, i will concede that i don't know a lot about online play.  I've only done a couple LAN games with a friend, so you may be right about some of your other points.  I just think a lot of the people who lose when they play vasari now are doing so precicely because everyone they talk to say they're the worst race.  Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, they tink they have the worst ships, so they do have the worst ships.  Just a thought.

Callen I 100% agree with your view. People are looking for something to nitpick about, before this it was the imbalance of the game, now that they cant cry about that, their looking for something new to jump on. Its funny how they act like if the Skirmisher doesnt get "balanced" with the other LF somehow Vasari Players wont be able to compete. Yet All across the boards you see people who play as Vasari with alot of wins in MP. I should start my own thread about the TECs Capitals having lacking abilities compared to the Advent and Vasari if were going to continue to cry about every little "unfair" thing in the game.

LOL, Good point Allegiance. But TEC didnt get the shaft in abilites. Maybe we should complain about....ummmm....huh....GRG not being strong. Yeah, that sounds good.



I think.

Here's a list of the current Ship Stats:

I just updated a couple days ago, so these should be accurate:

Cobalt Light Frigate (TEC):

635 Hull

370 Shield

2 Armor

10 Laser Damage

300 Credits/55 Metal/0 Crystal to Build- 22 Seconds Each

Sabotage Reactor

Disciple Vessel Primary (Advent):

425 Hull

450 Shields

2 Armor

8 Laser Damage

250 Credits/40 Metal/0 Crystal to Build- 20 Seconds Each

Steal Antimatter/Transfer Antimatter

Ravastra Skirmisher (Vasari):

740 Hull

465 Shield

3 Armor

10 Pulse Gun Damage

420 Credits/70 Metal/0 Crystal to Build- 31 Seconds Each

Reintegration

100 Fleet Supply Points=

20 Cobalts (100 Points) Or

25 Disciples (100 Points) Or

14 Skarovas (98 Points)

There, draw your own conclusions.

This is to repeat a point to an above poster. This game will never be completely balanced. We've gone from a game full of exploits to a new game that is balanced enough, but in online play, we are still finding small exploits.

Is the skirmisher's state game breaking? No. You can just get by with using Assailants, caps, carriers, or any of the other advantages the Vasari have as a race (yes, I know they have them).

The problem is the skirmisher is supposed to be able to be an anti-heavy unit. Currently, it is not. Assailants with focus fired phase missiles do the job better.

I agree with RA and others that the game balance is currently decent, obviously no game can ever be perfectly balanced but considering the immense amount of depth and complexity this game has to offer, it's a wonder that it's balanced as well as it is.

I, as well as others complain a lot, but I think in the end it's really not all that bad and the game could certainly be worse.  Vasari definitely have their strengths, they just have an extra hard time on small maps because of their early game disadvantage.  Mid-game they seem pretty balanced though.  Sure, Overseers suck, their Light Frig is usually not building, and their Scout isn't up to par either, but the rest of their ships seem to do their jobs pretty well, and they are the masters at taking out capital ships moreso than any other race.

I Agree.  I just posted the above list so everyone complaining the Skarovas weakness could see all the facts.

Personally, i think it is balanced.  Maybe the designers could remove ONE supply point, but then again, the Skarovas is the toughest, having 1 more armor, 95 more Hull/ 105 more Shield for Cobalt/315 more Hull/ 15 more Shield than Disciple, and an equal and 2 point stronger gun, respectively.  Maybe also adding 1 damage wouldn't hurt, but it's not vital.

I don't know.  But any other change would make it far too powerful.  Besides, as i stated before, it's role is hit and run, not frontline.  I'm telling you people, REINTEGRATION!  Fall back and actually use it, and you're going to be fine!  That's the reason Skarovas doesn't need antimatter to use it every 60 sec. here's the math- 12h/s over 20 sec duration= 240 hull restored.  At second Reintigration Level, double it.  480 Hull restored, probably faster than you will take damage while the undamaged Skirmishers do the talking.

Also, has anyone tested the Skirmisher's speed against the other 2?  I wouldn't know how to do that without getting AI's Capitols involved, but maybe someone could host a quick test game, or already has.  Just asking.

I call that late.  It would certainly be considered late in online play.  You would certainly have illums running around by then, as well as carrier cruisers.

At any rate, I agree with you and others that the suckiness of vasari shouldn't be overemphasized.  They don't suck that bad, and balance isn't overwhelmingly sucky.  Vasari are certainly playable. 

Having said that, the skirmisher being weak isn't a new issue - I noticed it ages and ages ago.  I guess there were just more glaring, blatant balance concerns before.  In a way, bitching about the poor skirmisher is probably a good thing.  It means there are less and less "truly major" issues to complain about.

or it just means theyve run out of stuff and instead of being happy their looking for something else to complain about.

Here's something to complain about if that's the case: the decline of Major League Baseball in America starting in the early 1990's with that retarded ass strike they had.

But nah, Allegiance, Skirmishers really do need something... even if it's just a tweak in the research tree that makes them upgrade a little better/faster.

Although I sometimes wonder if making certain other ships/techs come easier/earlier *cough*overseers*cough*/*cough*wavecannons*cough*, or with less investment might make the quality of skirmishers much less relevant?

Or maybe people are just over looking the fact that the Vasari were purposely given the weakness of overpriced toys. Just as the TEC and Advent have their own racial weaknesses. The Skirmisher is just prime example of the Vasari weakness, if we start playing around with that and make them better, they no longer have that issue and the TEC and Advent no longer have an advantage when it comes to utilizing the weakness of the Vasari in a strategy to conquer them. According to the stats Calleen posted, The Skirmisher is not weak, and the only place its coming up short is in MP because everyone there pays a great deal of attention to numbers. Meaning they spot "issues" easier, but really its not an issue its just something thats easier to point out when you play MP.

That's because multiplayer games are often over far faster than single player games.

The Vasari strengths only really show themselves around 6 or 7 labs in both military and empire trees... a lot of multiplayer games don't even get that far. For the Vasari, the game is an uphill struggle all the way to the end of their trees before their strengths finally really play out.

Not so for the TEC and Advent. Hell, I'm not even convinced the Advent even have a real "weakness". In either case, these two races take off much earlier in terms of acquiring their strengths. That's the greater problem, the skirmishers are just a symptom that's being whined about... because it gives us something specific to change.

Although really I think it's the Vasari tech trees that need to be looked into to bring them back into balance.

Honestly I think its the tactics and Strategies being employed that are the issue, plenty of Vasari players overcome these "weaknesses" through their strategies, and as much as the Vasari seem to have the bigger hill to overcome, they do have some of the most effecient tech within the SoaSE universe. The game wasnt built to be short, although it is capable of being over very fast. The game itself is geared towards long term. Which is what you find in SP as SP is the majority of players choice and in turn what Devs orient their balance towards. Honestly I dont see how this is that big of an issue, I dont play Vasari, but I do play against them quite often as the tactics for Vasari challenge TEC tactics and strategies. And Ive never noticed the Vasari as a whole being illbalanced. If anything their a challenge for me. People keep arguing that if the Vasari were Guerilla Warfare oriented theyd have a different balance, which isnt realistic if you think about the Vasari bringing a real fighting force to a fight, and soon realizing they didnt have the numbers to pit against the TEC, so they changed their strategy not their individual units stats. They have to use what they have. And deal with the difficulty of not having an established foundation in that part of space. The great thing about this game is how much the lore and ingame play tie in together. The Lore and the circumstances in the SINs storyline effects ingame play and whats more it shows how weak the individual units are when you stress them with gamestyles that involve rushing and bringing a 5 hour game down to 1 or 2 hours. You wouldnt notice the difference and it wouldnt harm the gameplay as much if you werent in such a rush to crush the enemy as fast as possible. Its fast paced and requires you and your units to push themselves beyond what they were designed for.

On the stats, it seems that the Skirmisher got the raw deal on the 1.18 improvements to light frigates in terms of shields and hull.  Reintegration doesn't help much in the role of anti-support, so what is the role of Skirmishers supposed to be...? 

It could also be said that the Skirmisher got the worst of the effective nerf when the carriers got extra squadrons and a dps/supply boost in the previous large balance patch v1.1, since the comparison would be between the carriers dps/supply to the light frigates defence/supply and the light frigates dps/supply to the carriers defence/supply.  The carriers began to do more damage, weakening the Skirmishers strongest feature, while they have fewer hulls- but this helped the higher dps light frigates more....?

I do not understand the references to SP 'balance'...?  Also, isn't it somewhat vainglorious to make generalisations about multiplayer when you haven't tried it?  Almost all the online players have played the single player game...  Human opposition is much better than the AI.  Also, if the game was oriented to SP by the developers, the AI would have to be far better- for balance!

It is a myth that the majority of online players are rushers.  Experienced online players will rush weak players, which is what single players who start online tend to be.  However, it isn't their sole approach to play, and it depends greatly on the map.  Boomers have to expect an early attack if they are detected, though. 

What is the suggestion that online players wouldn't notice the difference between a 5 hour game and a 1-2 hour game supposed to mean???? 

what makes you think i havent tried it? I made a point about the speed of MP compared to SP which is realistic. I dont know where you get where your coming from. Maybe if you paid attention you would of understood instead of just wanting to post a response.

The game is balanced, but there are things in MP that are done that the individual units werent created for (exploiting things like Scouts) People in MP try things you dont see in SP. Using units for tasks they werent specified for. Thats my point about the game being more oriented towards SP because when you push these units like you do in MP you see the differences between each and every aspect. Even RA admitted hes more about the numbers. You dont see these problems in SP because strategies and tactics arent the same.

My problem with ANY race's LFs being weak is this:  It can't be replaced.  Light Frigates are the staple "anti-heavy" unit, countering FOUR types of ships (flaks, the 2 types of support cruisers, and carrier cruisers), and have NO substitute to do their job.

For example, against "light" armor ships, you could bring mass scouts, but you could ALSO go fighters.

Against "very-heavy" type ships, you could bring bombers, but LRFs also work as well.

Against bombers, you could bring fighters, but flaks work okay as well.

Each unit has something it counters very well, but there are usually decent alternatives if you decide to skip that unit or do something else.

Light Frigates, like these other examples, don't have a substitute.  Aside from Heavy Cruisers, they are the only unit that decently battles the "heavy" armor type.  Not that it would matter if HCs were a viable solution early game, as Vasari's HCs are underpowered as well.

The point is, each race needs to have adequate LFs.  There is no subsitute to this type of ship and the role it has.  If Ironclad doesn't want to buff Vasari's LFs, then they need to make a new type of ship for them that can fill their role.  Otherwise, of course they are going to be underpowered, they have 4 type of enemy ships that they can't properly deal with.

This means that the Vasari are underpowered. It is completely unjustifiable giving a race the short end of the stick for so many ship types.

 Saying that a faction must be weak for the sake of lore is a poor excuse.

Why doesn't the TEC have pathetic ships? In the lore they are only retrofitted civilian vessels so they shouldn't be particularly poweful. Why isn't the TEC underpowered? TEC were getting pwned by the Vasari in the lore, but the TEC isn't weak in the game. The TEC had to relearn all the ways of war in only a decade. In the lore, Vasari are a warlike race and the most technologically advanced yet they get the weakest ships? It makes no sense.

Agreed.

TEC ships are retrofitted, but in doing this, wouldn't you put the biggest guns possible on them?  They obviously had a firm grasp on Auto-Cannons/Missiles, since squadrons were said to be a defence against pirates in the lore, so it's not that big a stretch to say they just made these bigger.

And as for their ship's toughness?  They were cargo ships in a galaxy over-ridden with pirates.  they needed to be tough to survive.

edit-  Also, you should take into account that they are probably scared out of their minds, so they'll overcompensate on some things, like the armor on the front of the Kol, their first dedicated warship design in a very long time.

Allegiance86, play the game in multiplayer before you post.  Playing the game against a shitty AI in single player doesn't give you the qualifications to speak on this.  It is hard to take anything you say seriously when that is where you are coming from.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a different view than others - in fact that is fantastic.  But you have to know what you are talking about, and clearly you don't.

Yes it is weak according to those stats, because you have to take everything into account (dps, armor, hull, supply cost, credit cost, metal cost, crystal cost).  When you take all of that into account, IT IS WEAK, IT IS EASILY PROVEN TO BE WEAK.  I KNEW IT WAS WEAK THE FIRST TIME I PLAYED THE GAME AGES AGO.  IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN WEAK.  IT EASILY STANDS OUT AS BEING WEAK.  IF YOU CAN'T SEE THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

"Pound for pound" the ship is weak.  This is born out not only by numbers on paper, but in play.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but you aren't entitled to your own facts.  The undisputed fact is, the ship is weak.  Now, having assessed that fact, you can still be of the opinion that it doesn't matter.  Maybe the vasari have other things that compensate for skirmisher weakness?  That's a perfectly valid argument to try to make.