Uh oh..

That's a long list.   I read your whole post. I don't disagree with any of it, although I may have a rosier view of the v.0.20 cap ship abilities than you.. (What's wrong with Colonize?  I liked the extra constructors idea but haven't tried Vasari yet at all, is that not working?)

And I don't have any immediate suggestions for any of these issues..

But I have some suggestions for you as 'mod leader' and (currently) the only one doing direct modding:

1) I think you might want to make some new threads/polls for some of these other topics.  I know forums tend to frown on people spamming new threads, but if you're thinking about broader gameplay philosophy questions then you'll probably want to set those conversations apart from the nitty-gritty number crunching.. or at least partition those things out by topic a bit more.  Besides, these forums seem pretty quiet overall, so I'm guessing most people wouldn't mind if you created a swath of polls to ask for everyone's heartfelt view on what's needed for scout, LRF, or bomber balance.

2) Don't try to fix all of this at once, or 'fix' any of it to perfection. 

Personally, I don't think you need to fix everything on that list.. Much of it could, in theory, use some balance tweaking.. But I think you're much less likely to get burnt out, and perhaps more likely to generate fan interest/feedback/support, if you just forge ahead with some of your ideas and make them available for people to try.  I guess I'm not telling you anything you don't already know; you started (relatively) small with the caps anyway..  I'm just saying, I already enjoy the game so I'd be happy to see the cap-ability tweaks and some basic changes to inter-ship balance.

I should probably clarify this...that list is comparing abilities to their original stats...so for example, the Jarrasul colonize ability is at a high priority because it was changed at the conceptual level...most of those abilities in the first two levels have been changed significantly...

I'm considering this...its going to come down to what other people want to work on...if no one wants to, say, deal with non-military aspects then I'll just work on it on my own...

My feeling is, as I come to something I'll open a thread, get ideas, then implement them and test it...the direction this goes is important....

On one end of the spectrum is a mod that just does some balancing...balances the abilities on capital ships, maybe tweaks a few problem areas like phasic trap, but does very little to change the essence of the game...on the other end of the spectrum is a mod that truly changes the game at the conceptual level...the more that others have an interest in fixing and tweaking other areas, the more I'll lean to the "just balancing" end of the spectrum...the less others get involved, the more I'll lean to changing things to make a very different game...

 

Well... Seleuceia pretty much summarized the problem.

At this point, the big issue is that the role certain capital ships play leads them into the line of fire, and after the early-game (and with fastest speed, even during the early game...) this is suicidal.  Something will need to change to give capital ships a stronger survivability to get them working.

I'm mostly a LAN gamer and a complete unknown on the forums, but I've done a bit of homework on balancing issues and I'd like to put in my two cents with the hope that a good mod-maker or a developer will read my post.  I'll divided my thoughts into sections on unit counters, weapon types, and special abilities.  I would be very grateful for any criticism or discussion.  I also realize this thread, in spite of being the right topic, is a bit old, so I'll try to put this on its own if it doesn't get a response for a while.  Anyway, here goes...

Unit counters

The basic counter structure of the game would work very well like this.  LF counter carriers, which counter LRF and HC with fighters and bombers, respectively, and LRF and HC counter LF.  A nice, neat rock-paper-scissors triangle of HARD counters.  Each point of the triangle counters a special unit that is not part of the regular battle line.  LF counter support cruisers, LRF and HC counter capitals, and carriers counter structures/starbases.  I see fighters and LRF being common early and then evolving to raiding/counter-bomber ops, with bombers and HC eventually displacing them in the main line of battle as the game goes on and players focus more on clearing out grav wells and destroying the enemy fleet for good.  Every single unit in this system is viable and could be used.

I'm sure many of you already see why this system does not exist.  First, I'm forgetting a basic, tier 2 combat unit: flak.  Flak provides a sort of strange, soft counter to LRFs because of its durability and even the LFs that currently are supposed to counter it can't kill flak quickly and get annihilated by even small numbers of LRFs before they can do the job.  Flak also makes sure that fighters are completely useless, which in turn worsens the lot of LFs who can never have sufficient fighter support to fend off LRFs.  LFs tend to make a slight comeback late game once HCs begin to replace LRFs and bombers, which can survive flak, can cover the LFs as they hit late-game support cruisers and carrier swarms.  In summary, fighters and LFs are not truly viable units--this is a problem.  Second, in my ideal world, carrier caps do not turn the "LRF/HC counter capitals" idea on its head.

How could this be fixed?  To solve the first issue, I'd propose making flak slightly less durable (especially vs. LFs) and about as effective versus fighters as it is versus bombers currently.  Fighters AND bombers would be able to get in a few good runs on a fleet with flak and there would be a viable early-game flak-killer without having to wait for HCs.  This benefit of these changes would be to make the oft-spammed LRF a less dominant unit without messing with it and make the grossly under-powered fighters and LFs have a real place in the game.  The danger would be making strike craft overall the new over-powered unit.  I believe, however, that the effect would be to make flak a quick, cheap-to-build defensive unit that let someone fend of strikecraft until they got a fighter force (based out of more expensive carriers) of their own up and running.  "Air superiority" through fighter production would be important even in mid-late game and the bomber spam folks complain about would be less prevalent with fighters back in the sky.  To solve the second issue, I'd propose a change in tactics, not the game itself.  With fighters back in the picture, bombers (and carriers that currently spam them) would be less of a factor.  Since fighters are near ineffective versus anything except LRFs and bombers, strike craft swarms (being more fighter-heavy), would be less damaging to fleets in general.  Thus, my proposed changes flow through the counter system and self-regulate.

Weapon types

Each faction has three primary weapon types which, when upgraded, improve certain types of units.  They are, for TEC/Advent/Vasari, the AutoCannon/Plasma/WaveCannon group, the Laser/Laser/Pulse group, and the Missile/Beam/PhaseMissile group.  The AutoCannon/Plasma/WaveCannon group upgrades HCs for all factions.  The Laser/Laser/Pulse group upgrades LFs and support cruisers for all factions.  The Missile/Beam/PhaseMissile group upgrades LRF and bombers for all factions.  The differences come with flak and fighters.  For TEC, the AutoCannon/Plasma/WaveCannon group upgrades fighters and flak.  For Advent, it's the Laser/Laser/Pulse group.  For Vasari, it's the Missile/Beam/PhaseMissile group.  I think that this system is fine as is and that the "all Vasari units use phase missiles" complaint merely serves to create a myth.  However, there is a problem with how units are used in practice that makes this setup SEEM unbalanced to those who post in these forums.

Currently, the game favors LRFs and bombers to the exclusion of other units.  This means that everyone tends to use the Missile/Beam/PhaseMissile group when upgrading.  Vasari players, in turn, benefit disproportionately because this is also their "flak/fighter" weapons group.  Advent players *really* suffer because they must rely on their below-average LRF.  Ideally, each faction could focus on maximizing returns by focusing on their "flak/fighter" group to upgrade the largest possible number of units and get a nice edge when using the "other" units in the same weapons group, thereby promoting a bit of diversity in unit mix between the factions instead of just giving Vasari an edge all the time.

How could this be fixed?  If all the combat units were truly viable, players could pick any upgrade path without fear of falling behind in the sacred LRF/bomber race.  My proposed fix in the "unit counters" section would do this.  I once read a post where someone asked, "What is the counter to a phase missile researcher?"  If you're still out there and find this, the answer, after my fix, would be, "Invest in carriers with fighters and LFs to counter the Vasari phase missile units: LRFs, bombers, flak, and fighters."  This poor man was having trouble, however, because the current LRF/bomber-dominated system does not let you escape the Missile/Beam/PhaseMissile group to DO that.

Special abilities

I will admit that while I am convinced I have a good answer to the issues in the first two sections of this post (modify flak), I am less certain of how to fix all the "OP" abilities in the game and will not be able to provide comprehensive coverage of the issue.  I do, however, have a few good ideas for dealing with commonly complained-about issues.

I'll begin with defensive support cruisers (Iconus, Hoshiko, Overseer).  In this group, I've heard that Iconus and Hoshiko are good, but overseers are not really all that cost-effective.  I'd go with a simple solution: make overseers take less fleet supply to create.  There's no reason to make them 7 fleet supply when Hoshikos and Dominas are taking up 4.  I'll continue with offensive cruisers (Domina, Cielo, Subverter).  I hear that Dominas and Cielos are a bit weak, while subverters are OP.  From what I've seen, Dominas and Cielos are OK, but subverters are (please forgive me as I get on my soap box) MASSIVELY OP.  Before I am mistaken for a Vasari-hater, let me explain.  The subverter takes *very little* resources to create and only takes 5 fleet supply, yet it can be built en masse and used to indefinitely disable entire fleets with distortion field.  Even one can stun over 40 units in a standard formation (I tested this by having one trigger its ability in the middle of a large formation of arcova scout frigates).  Distortion field, after the range 8000 jump, is a channeling ability.  It can be used 4-5 times in rapid succession before draining the subverter's antimatter pool.  It jumps past repulsion fields (which it outranges), it outranges the Domina's suppression and the Cobalt's sabotage reactor (which can interrupt the channeling) and there is NO effective counter to it because even the LFs that are supposed to save the fleet from this sort of thing get stunned with everything else and NOTHING can get in a shot before the jump (strikecraft don't count--they CANNOT (and really should not), with their damage multipliers, take down groups of support cruisers quickly).  I don't have a perfect fix for this, but I'll make a few suggestions.  For TEC, if Cobalts were immune to distortion field, they could use sabotage reactor to interrupt the distortion fields--it'd make for an exciting race to pick off the subverters before the Vasari fleet annihilated the paralyzed TEC.  For Advent, if the subverter's range were severly reduced, they could stave off certain defeat with repulse and shoot the subverters (remember, Vasari can already deal with repulse by outranging it with assailants).  For Vasari dealing with subverters, deal with it--you can retaliate by making your own.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, I'll briefly lay out my view on cap ship abilities.  I have heard, and I agree, that some caps have abilities that give them only a small niche in the game (Dunovs, Antoraks, Kols, etc).  I think this is OK.  In fact, without carrier caps outshining all the rest (per my section 1 and 2 fix), some might make a comeback.  The one ability that I hear, over and over, is OP, is the Skirantra's "scramble bombers."  I think the guys who posted before me have the right idea and I support them: control the max number of squads from this ability that can be active at one time.  It's that simple.  3/4/5 sounds good to me.

Conclusion

I could go on all night about other minor issues I'd like to address, but I feel that the gaming experience would greatly improve if:

1. We fixed flak frigates

2. We made subverters counterable.

Welcome to the forums kgf

This is very similar to the old 1.15 balance, which was very carrier-dominant.  Some people liked it, others did not.  Basically, you'll find about the same kind of reception I got when I suggested rolling back the scout nerf to bring back the 1.18 LF/scout opener.  Some would be happy to see it happen, others will scream bloody murder.

For my part, I do not believe carriers can ever be made a cost-competitive unit to HC's, Flaks, and LRF in a direct battle.  They're just too good at flighty escapades with their unmatched mobility (they literally run circles around their target) and no replacement cost.  With low-cost kiting tactics and fortress positions with turrets, they can be extremely difficult to approach and their fighters can deal excessive casualties over the course of a prolonged skirmish.  Without powerful flaks to provide protected areas, carriers just become the go-to unit for brute force.

Now, I fully support a buff to fighters; they're currently on the weak side.  However, the point is this is one unit that we don't want to push too far.  

 

The problem is that phase missiles are far and away the best damage upgrade.  They work out to about 90% bonus damage against shielded units when maxed out, which just blows the paltry 20-30% other upgrades offer out of the water.  And to top it off, this upgrade line is available from T1 and maxes out at T6 despite having 4 upgrade levels.  This is really sidelining the Enforcer and (already lackluster) Skirmisher as Vasari combat units.  The Enforcer's pathetic wave upgrades only start at level 4, and max out at level 7; they're ludicrously prohibitive.

Overseers are fine; they're not as good as the awesome Iconus and Hoshiko, but they're effective units that are an important part of a balanced fleet.  Sending your capital ships into a major battle without Overseers is liking signing up for a monster truck rally without car insurance.  They're also brutal as part of a starbase push.

 

Dominas and Cielos are okay, but as five-lab units that require 6-labs to unlock their only decent ability they just totally miss the mark.  Subverters are absolutely brutal, no one will argue with you there.  However, they come late enough in the game that I'm somewhat forgiving.  The trick is to spread yourself out to avoid getting too many shut down simultaneously.  I don't think they should be left alone, but I also don't think subverters need to be nerfed too heavily.  They're an end-game level unit and the power they have is actually somewhat appropriate.

My personal opinion is that Vasari's late game powers are only a tad over the top, and it's really a holistic issue involving the synthesis of all their advantages.  Subverters on their own are fine, it's subverters comboed with high-damage abilities and other shut-downs that are the problem.  More to the point is that Advent is absolutely murdered by fully-upgraded missiles and TEC's late game just sucks in general, so Vasari really doesn't have any real competition if the game goes late.

The problem with Dunovs and Antoraks are that their abilities don't pack enough power to justify investing an entire capital ship in them, and beyond that they're very fragile and easy to kill; being niche on top of all that is just a deal-breaker when you have balanced choices that fulfill broader roles very well or specialized choices that truly excel at a given role.  The problem with Kol is that it sucks at lower levels and basically only starts to shine at level 5, but in multiplayer it's very difficult to get capital ships up to this level, making the Kol completely impractical.

The important aspects of a capital ship are as follows:
1) Must be useful starting at level 1; if it needs to level up 3 or 4 times to start performing, it's just impractical.
2) It must either fulfill a broad range of roles or be very good at what it does.
3) It's got to be able to perform its role in realistic conditions.  A capital ship that needs to get into the fray to use its ability, but is too fragile to survive focus fire, just isn't workable.

I've bolded the part that nearly made me go livid.

I may not play MP of any kind (no local friends with Sins, not really into online), but I routinely read pretty much all sections of the Sins forums. And there's reason that Distortion Field outranges Repulse.

It was from the days when Advent were super-OP, and Repulse was uber. Vasari were UP at the time, and DF was made to outrange Repulse to counter it.

There's also the fact that, generally speaking, killing a bunch of Guardians isn't going to be as immediately effective as disabling and THEN killing them.

Most of the reason for this is because the Guardians can continue to use their abilities (without interference, as Skirmishers won't be able to shut them down due to spamming Repulse), while being killed.

If you disable them with Subverters, then you can safely kill them without them playing merry hell with your fleet.

The other problem is that DF is channeling; if you make the Subverter do ANYTHING other than channel Distortion Field, you lose the effects of Distortion Field.

I'd also wager that Repulse would keep Subverters from using Distortion Field indefinitely, if Repulse outranged DF.

Ah, I did not know the history there...  Your point is well-taken.  I only began to play with the current version.  I tend to think that the subverter should be compared to the Domina and Cielo in terms of overall effectiveness.  I'll explain.  Both of these support cruisers are roughly equivalent to the subverter in cost, fleet supply, and tech level.  They also both use channeling abilities that can hurt the enemy.  The Domina uses suppression, which disables one enemy unit (and at a shorter range than distortion field) so long as the Domina channels.  The Cielo uses designate target, which makes one unit 40% less resistant to damage (and at a shorter range than distortion field) so long as the Cielo channels.  If these abilities are used carefully, they can turn the tide of a battle.  They can also be countered by killing/interrupting the channeling unit.  Distortion field, on the other hand, can shut down entire fleets without too much attention being paid to the choice of target unit at all.  It also cannot be effectively interrupted because half the affected fleet has been shut down and the other half is about to get hit by subverters number two, three, four, five, etc.

Perhaps it would make more sense to simply put a small cap on the number of units it can affect?  After all, the other cruisers can only hit one target--and distortion field WOULD be a cool counter to repulsion so long as it didn't knock out half a fleet in the process. 

I think that if the subverter were perhaps brought into line with the Domina and Cielo in terms of effectiveness, this late-game imbalance might be greatly reduced.  If the TEC didn't have to worry about its masses of late game units (produced courtesy of the pervasive economy tech) getting disabled en masse by a handful of inexpensive Vasari subverters, maybe they could compete with the Kosturas, phase stabilizers, and fully-upgraded Orkulus bases of the late game.  Of course, I still don't have a great answer to Advent's late-game issues with phase missiles, although I'm willing to venture a guess that if fighters were a viable late-game unit (new readers see my first post), the Advent could mitigate the terrible effects of phase-missile-using Kanraks and bombers on their late-game fleets.

In the current version, Vasari can go toe-to-toe with a battleball with nothing but massed assailants.  The days of Advent "pushing around" Vasari with repulsion are over now that the illuminator isn't completely rigged.  Vasari's need for a hard counter to repulsion isn't as urgent anymore, if necessary at all.  From TEC's perspective, however, both these abilities are equally catastrophic if they're used effectively.


Only if you were massing illuminators.  If you're using destras, your heavies have to move forward and expose themselves to shut-down.




In terms of tech position, they're right on the same mark.  In terms of power... you really shouldn't be comparing anything to the Domina or Cielo.  They're notorious for requiring excessive amounts of tech just to access a mediocre unit, and are some of the least-used units you will ever encounter.  If anything, the lesson is that the Subjugator and Cielo are in desperate need of a buff.

Overall, the Subjugator is just above the guardian and hoshiko in terms of power.  The issue is a holistic issue across the entire Vasari faction.  As a stand-alone issue, I'd actually say the Guardian with repulsion is worth than the Subjugator.




Dominas and Cielos are some of the least-seen units, and are pretty close to the top of my "needsa  buff" list.  Frankly you're talking about nerfing the Subverter to near-uselessness, which I oppose.




This might be a successful argument... if Advent wasn't also adept at disrupting their enemies in the late-game.  Personally as TEC, I fear the Iconus Guardian far more than I fear the Stikulus Subverter.  As it stands, it's TEC that's the odd man out, not the other way around.



Nope; if you go strike-craft heavy in the late-game, Vasari will pull out a double or triple-Kortul formation and shut you down.  You'll be forced into a frigate power, at which point they'll rip you limb from limb with PM's. 

my 5 cents:

1 LRF damage against CAPS should be reduced by AT LEAST 50%

2 Bombers need some kind of nerf

3 More SC should be on non-carrier CAPs: 5 on support caps, 3 on colonizers, planet killers and battleships

4 All caps get ~25-30% buff to health and shields

5 Carrier cruisers cost should be decreased to make them viable choice compared to capitals

6 Damage buffs to multiple caps. ~80% on Battleships, ~30% on Colonizers, Planet Killers and Supporters

7 Counter system fixed:

CAP>LRF, LF, support cruiser

Fighters,HC>LRF

LRF=LF

LF=HC

LRF> Support cruisers, flaks

Bombers> all but fighters and flak

Fighters> bombers, LRF

LF> flak, support cruisers

HC> LRF, flak, support cruisers

Caps=HC

(or something like this)

8 buff 9000 underused cap abilities and nerf op ones (scramble and anima...)

 

 

You realize that your proposed "fixed" counter system is going to be a total pain to implement right?

TBH, I think that the current counter system is too ingrained for the one you put forth to work. There's also the fact that the counter system isn't too bad off; sure there are broken parts but for the most part, it's pretty good.

The other problem you'll face is that light frigates, by their very nature, cannot be equivalent to heavy cruisers. It's not a "LF have light in their name, so are suxx0rz against heavy cruisers since HC are heavy", but a "HC are Tier 5/6 techs, and around 2-3x more expensive than LF".

Really it's a "HC SHOULD beat LF, because they are a higher-tier unit intended to perform the role of front-line unit in the mid-late to late game". LF are starting units. HC are expensive, beastly cruisers that are intended to open up cans of whup-ass on the enemy. LF are not that; they're intended as an okay combat unit in the early game that is then relegated to specialized anti-carrier and anti-support cruiser duties.

The problem in the current iteration is that LF simply aren't able to perform said duty effectively.

I don't want LFs being replaced completely just after HCs appear, thats why IMO their effectiveness per cost should be very similar to HCs (and against them). So basically these two units should be near equal (per cost) to each other BUT HC should be more cost-effective in LCs jobs (countering units) in expense of lower speed and greater vulnerability to Bombers. There is no need (in terms of balance) of LF being cost-to-cost hardcountered by HC (and vice-versa of course).

Except that, IIRC, LF aren't hard-countered by HC. LF have never really had a front-liner role in Sins; they've more-or-less been a stopgap combat unit/meatshield.

The thing is, LF have, AFAIK, been intended to progress into an anti-support cruiser role in the mid-to-late game, with their researchable anti-support abilities and their ANTIHEAVY damage type (HEAVY armor is used by all cruiser carriers and support cruisers), making them do more damage to their intended targets.

Ok,some numbers to "fix counters system" section:

CAPITAL damage vs LIGHT increased to 100% (from 75%)

ANTI-MEDIUM damage vs CAPITAL reduced to 50% (from 75%)

ANTI-MEDIUM damage vs MEDIUM reduced to 125% (from 150%)

ANTI-HEAVY damage vs VERY HEAVY increased to 75% (from 50%)

ANTI-HEAVY damage vs LIGHT increased to 100% (from 75%)

 

So basically:

- Capitals do more damage vs LRF and take less damage from LRF

- LF do more damage vs LRF and take less damage from LRF

- LF do more damage vs HC

 

But that really isn't going to do very much; LF aren't supposed to be able to duel LRF, as the LRF are intended to be the counters to LF.

I think, as has been previously mentioned, the LRF dominance issue is down to SC. Because of the dominance of LRF and bombers, caps and pretty much everything else are simply turned into various flavors of Swiss cheese.

Changing the ANTIMEDIUM vs CAPITAL damage was probably already on the list; however I think that tweaking the others would likely have unforeseen consequences; what these consequences would be is beyond me (that's why they're "unforeseen").

 

LRF will still counter LF, but not as hard as now. It is good, because it will make using mixed fleets much easier.

 

After this armor%/damage% change AND caps buff (hp+sh+DPS) this problem will be mostly fixed. Caps will be turned from underdog into natural LRF counters, while bombers will need significantly more time to break buffed armor.

If it is not enough, there is possible one more change:

ANTI-VERY LIGHT damage vs LIGHT increase from 75% to 100%

It will make anti-strikecraft frigates slightly better vs bombers.

Here are the changes made in Project Equilibrium:

Damage Data

• Anti-very light damage percent bonus against light armor decreased from .75 to .60
• Anti-very light chance to hit bomber increased from 75% to 85%
• Anti-light damage percent bonus against light armor increased from 2.00 to 2.33
• Anti-light chance to hit bomber increased from 75% to 85%
• Anti-medium damage percent bonus against capital armor decreased from .75 to .50
• Anti-medium damage percent bonus against heavy armor decreased from .75 to .60
• Anti-medium damage percent bonus against very heavy armor decreased from .75 to .55
• Anti-medium damage percent bonus against module armor increased from .50 to .55
• Anti-heavy damage percent bonus against capital armor increased from .50 to .65
• Anti-heavy damage percent bonus against heavy armor increased from 1.50 to 1.75
• Anti-heavy damage percent bonus against very heavy armor increased from .50 to .75
• Anti-heavy damage percent bonus against module armor increased from .50 to .60
• Anti-very heavy damage percent bonus against capital armor decreased from .75 to .55
• Composite damage percent bonus against light armor decreased from 1.5 to 1.25
• Composite damage percent bonus against medium armor decreased from 1.25 to 1.00

I have played ICO and LAN games quite a bit with this mod, and so far the numbers have seemed to work out rather well...

In general, fleet diversity is absolutely crucial as no ship type dominates over the others...

LFs - in general, much more viable...for one, with LRFs and HCs weaker against heavy armor, LFs are crucial for dealing with support cruisers and carriers...while LRFs are still a very hard counter, LFs are more resilient against HCs and more effective against caps, making a large amount of LFs always viable...these ships are really important throughout all stages of the game, including late game...I would note that this mod increased the DPS of the Vasari Skirmisher, so Vasari have a decent LF now...

LRFs - weaker against heavy armor, HCs, and caps...not only do caps survive longer, but LRF spamming rarely if ever works...carriers, flak, and support ships are more resilient against LRFs, forcing you to build LFs or at least HCs...still very important ship as they are still one of the best cap killers and the hardest counter against LFs...I would note that Kanraks and LRMs are slightly slower, making it harder for them to pursue carriers and caps (Illuminators were unchanged)...

Flak - by changing the accuracy, flak is about the same when it comes to killing bombers, but not as good at killing LRFs (since bonus against light armor decreased)...especially for advent, fighters are a much better counter against LRFs than flak...

Fighters - still killed by flak, but much more useful as a counter against LRFs...they also are much better at taking out bombers, so spamming bombers is very dangerous now and not really that effective...you will find that an LF/fighter fleet vs. a LRF/flak fleet is a pretty even match provided you micro your fighters properly and stick them to the LRFs...

HCs - in general, these ships are not nearly as dominate as they used to be...though they will still win against any flak/LF/LRF combo, they are still very vulnerable to disable/repair ships and bombers...LFs, LRFs, flak, and fighters are much better at killing each other than HCs are at killing anything, so HC spam is not usually very effective...

Bombers - these guys go down a lot faster and in general are much easier to suppress with fighters...also, they aren't quite as good against capital ships, making the LRF/Bomber combo not nearly as effective as it used to be...

I would note that a lot of other changes were made regarding capital ships and capital/support/structure abilities, but in general I think these damage values would work about the same independent of all other changes...the only real issue with these changes is that repulsion is harder to deal with as TEC (since only LRMs are in range but they are now weaker against heavy armor)...this was addressed by a serious nerf to repulsion (shorter range and it no longer resets physics states)...

LF were already buffed to withstand LRFs better and it resulted in scout/LF spam that was insane.  LF does not need changed again in that respect.  As to the subverters, they are just one more thing that is somewhat OP to vasari.  The thing is that subverters suck worse due to the other glaring things vasari have.  Consider the fact that subs are dealt with best by strike craft(they stay active when everything else is disabled).  This is negated completely with phasic trap on the defensive.  Also there is the fact that the vasari will already be overboard on strike craft themselves due to OP skirantra being able to field a dozen bombers along with fighters for a mid level skirantra and will kill the cap/carrier cruisers pretty quickly.  Repulse is not the answer to subs because it will generally be the first thing the bomber and assailant spam will target and all it takes is one disable to ruin their effectiveness pretty much permanently if the vasari keeps up with the disabling. 

Domina subjugators already have the ability to negate the disabling however it is woefully underpowered compared to the sub.  The domina is single target only rather than AE like the subverter and would require an insane amount of micro to un-disable enough to make a dent, plus its a channelled ability itself and tier 7 research as well.  Vasari has never been UP despite the griping of various people.  It has always went back and forth for strongest with advent depending on the patch.  When the guardian was stronger(could move and repulse as well as less AM cost) so was the subverter(it has been nerfed in its history as well).  Plus this was the time when RA had no cost outside of the research and building and vasari had unlimited ships at that point anyways and no matter how many you killed they could still get more for free.

 

[_]-Greyfox

Right now as it is Vasari actually have a strong early game with the Skirantra/Assailant start being only one military lab away from early domination and late game they have so many tricks it is hard to counter them all and repel or counterattack them effectively.

 

Between PS/RA, Phasic Trap, neutral mining, double Skirantra fleets, Phase Missles + researches AND Subverters Vasari have the most aggressive starts and the best late game tactical advantages. The only place they lack is in the EARLY economy since they can actually bypass and surpass Terran/TEC economies with Colony Pods + Merchant docks on SBs which can be aggressively researched and deployed. Then if the game goes very late the Kostura Cannon is absolutely game over if you take advantage of the ability for it to open Phase Lanes to the Enemy Homeworld when they are committed to a distant front line and pop their economy hard. 

This is completely wrong.  The TEC late-game economy is far superior to either of the other factions due to their Pervasive Economy and Development Mandate techs.  The Vasari starbase is also no economic mogul; colony pods are horrible and never worth investing in, and their trade port upgrade is no better than the TEC or Advent variety.

I'm totally in agreement on your other points, though.  Vasari has a synthesis of advantages that make them the strongest faction overall.

 

Lately, I have been surpassing TEC with the Vasari in regards to economy. Don't forget that the Vasari have the ability to gain resources from just destroying ships and then selling excess on the black market. Not to mention that the Vasari have the Space Whale that vamps planets for resources. Two of these can significantly supplement your income of resources which are in turn then cashed in.

 

While you maintain that Colony Pods are not worthwhile I digress as I find them highly worthwhile in large maps when you can afford to slot them on SBs that are not on the front lines. And this can even turn an uncolonizable gravity well to be a semicolonized grav-well that produces taxes and trade income. This is mostly secondary but I have actually been surpassing TEC as of late, but whether that is related to me revising my playstyle or other people also not utilizing colony pods and the Vasari late economy not being understood completely... I don't know but everyone plays the game different and I will maintain that when I play as the Vasari and look at the end of game stats my income is generally vastly superior to any other factions. That is whether I play multiplayer or against cruel AI.

 

NOTE - What I am trying to say is that ONCE the Vasari get their economy rolling it is NOT "by far" the weakest even if a comparable TEC player is in the game (this is assuming that the Advent are also on the map) and depending on the map the Vasari "might" still actually have an economic advantage depending on the number of Volcanic/Ice planets on the map.

Before he gets pervasive economy online I'd believe it.  Once he has pervasive economy online, he's earning money every time you (or your allies) spend money.  Every effort you make to improve your economy also improves his.  It's a losing battle; you can't overtake the TEC economy at this point unless you've completely left him in your dust (in which case, kostura spam him and end it already).

This only works on capital ships and structures.  It doesn't work on frigates or cruisers.

The problem is the immense cost of this upgrade and its marginal benefit.  If you do the payback time analysis, it takes about 50 minutes for it to pay off its initial cost.  If you have any upkeep whatsoever, it will take over an hour for this investment to actually start producing a net profit. 

Bottom line is that if you have any logistics space available, you should be plotting down trade ports instead of investing in this overpriced piece of trash.  If you've maxed out your logistics space... you should be kostura spamming, the game probably won't even last another 50 minutes anyways.

The AI always screws up its long-term economy, even with its immense cheating.  In multiplayer... depends on your opponent. 

I've done the math on that, too.  It starts to make sense with comparison to trade ports at around 10 ice planets and at about 30 volcanic planets (give or take based on loyalty).  In other words, it will almost never be worthwhile to invest in these techs if you still have the opportunity to build trade ports.  Furthermore, the benefit offered by TEC's development mandate positively dwarfs this by adding the potential for an extra trade port on all types of planets.

I haven't done any number crunching, but I find that the economic edge TEC gets late game isn't enough to offset the Vasari advantages...

TEC have an extra trade port upgrade, but Vasari have two levels of colony pods...now, the pay off time for the colony pods is absolutely ridiculous, so while the Vasari have one more money-making SB upgrade than the TEC, I'd say from a practical standpoint TEC are probably better off...

If you take into account that TEC can put factories on their SBs, then TEC have potentially more logistic slots for trade/refineries...this doesn't always work out since where you need factories (frontline) is also where you'd need heavily militarized SBs (frontline)...

When it comes to resources, Vasari have an extra tier of resource technology and they have to only research one tech for both crystal and metal...however, TEC can buy resources off the black market for less...I'd say this is sort of comparable to getting extra resources if you consider that almost always you will be buying more than selling during the late game...

TEC have a level 1 or 2 tech (can't remember exactly) that decreases costs of extractors and factories...Vasari have two separate technologies, one that reduces credit cost (lvl 3 or 4) and one that reduces resource cost (lvl 7)...while the Vasari techs may be more powerful in the long run, they are also more expensive and higher level...

Both factions have technologies that increase construction speed of structures, with TEC being lower level and IIRC Vasari being more powerful...

Vasari do have Drain Planet, but that is a level 6 ability...TEC have embargo, which can be gotten at almost any time and easily used on multiple planets...both of these are beneficial to you, and damaging to the enemy...again, drain planet is probably more powerful per use, but its harder to use and harder to get...

Up to this point, I'd say TEC and Vasari are fairly even economically....

But, TEC have some real aces up their sleeve...for one, Pervasive economy is really powerful and TEC have slightly better trade technologies...also, development mandate is a huge boost to economy (essentially an extra trade port per planet)...TEC also have industrial juggernaut and a tech somewhere in the diplomacy tree that increases the production speed on factories...

TEC envoys also are the only ones to benefit the player who owns them (free money, can't remember name of the ability though)...

So, I'd say TEC are better off economically when it comes to who has the most resources/money...but, I hardly think this matters as Vasari are still economically competitive and better than TEC in virtually every other late game aspect (culture being only place they're even, and that's debatable)...

Ultimately, the problem with TEC isn't their economy, it's their military...if TEC military was only slightly inferior to Advent and Vasari, then the TEC economy could carry them during the late game...

If TEC could build ships say, twice as fast as Vasari, then maybe TEC would stand a chance if kostura's didn't exist...

Indeed; if we're talking about a TEC player feeding his allies, this is a very competitive late-game faction.  If we're talking about a stand-alone TEC player who has to make due with his own faction's assets, that economy is meaningless by this point since the TEC's late game is so hopelessly outclassed.

Which is what I was trying to get at. I guess by the time I see my economy surpassing everyone else as Vasari I am also so far into winning the game that the TEC economy is on the verge of crashing since I am now on his doorstep knocking it down. And if persay he makes one last attempt at a counterstrike I will just take advantage of PS/RA to stop him cold. And yes I was also trying to say that the Vasari standalone economy is far from being inferior, it's actually quite competitive depending on how you play.

lol subs against tec is HORRIBLE. Even when u spread your fleet into 5-8 groups it can own you.Mines completely wipe out your fleet when subs are around.10-15 subs with 5 or 6 minelayers shooting mines out all at once is completely impossible to kill the mines.You can beat gaurds with a few tp and nothing but javs pretty easily.In repulse current state it is possible to beat grey with javs who is the best repulse user out there.