"Because their powerful toys are more balanced and as such dont stand a change against the Vasari ones"
Do you realize how bad that sounds? What exactly makes the TEC/Advent "balanced" and Vasari not? The balance here comes out clearly from their direct comparison, in which case, who decides, which side is the balanced one and which side is not?
This not necessarily the case. It many aspects of the Vasari it's true, but there are some mechanics that are intrinsically overpowered. The most common example is things which don't have adequate counterplay options. It's not just the raw power, but the fact there is no way to shut the mechanics down. The Micro Phase Jump Maw combo is arguably an example of this.
There are also tools that at their current level of power are just toxic to gameplay- a good example here would be vasari bombers or jumping starbases, it would not be good for the game to just for example make every race's bombers as powerful as vasari ones.
And frankly when it comes down to it, it's just not efficient to do all balancing via buffs. When 1 race or faction s causing balance problems it makes no sense to go through a ton of effort buffing every other faction when you can fix the problem by nerfing a single faction. In cases like titans this is especially a problem- no amount of simple number changes will give the Ragnarov or Kultorask's level 6 abilities the uncounterability of The Maw- new effect would have to be added in almost every case- that's a ton of work and thought required for something that could be addressed with a single nerf.
Only using buffs sounds great in principal to players who can't deal with the thought of having their OP tools nerfed, but realistically it leads to power inflation which will make the game MUCH harder to balance in the long run.
There's a reason game balancing involves both buffs and nerfs. Using only buffs tends to result in a game that satisfies players who like "big impressive" effects but lacks the requisite balance for a truly strategic experience.
I like how you substitute your preference for less deadly and game-changing end-game stuff for better balance. From my POV, more deadly stuff (the I WIN button) very late game is perfectly fine, cause you fully deserve it, if the enemy let you to gain it in the first place.
And if the enemy has equal resources and time at his disposal, why should he be unable to counter your tool? You shouldn't sieze a decisive advantage against an equally strong player who has made no mistakes just because your race has an "I win" button and his doesn't
Moreover no matter how late game a tool is, being uncounterable is inherently toxic for a strategy game. The whole point of having a complex set of tools and counters is that no strategy, no unit is absolute. if the enemy sees it coming, acts appropriately, and has enough resources they can annul the tool and force you to not put all of your proverbial marbles in one basket.
Obviously, under condition, that other factions have their own win buttons late game and as i see it, things like the BRB or Wail, are technically exactly that. And no, i am not complaining about them, i just said the Wail is bit boring in comparison to the Maw. What i think is understandable.
Honestly again the problem with the Maw isn't really with the ability it's self. Micro Phase Jump is the real problem. Every other insta-kill AoE has counterplay via which they can be completely dissarmed(causing negligable casualties).
Other titan AoEs can be avoided via kiting. Wail can be avoided via Kostura/Novaliths, by destroying/disabling temples of communion or via the Vorastra's ability to plant phase stabilizers. Red button can be avoided by noticing the starbase can self destruct and keeping a safe distance, killing it with bombers.
There is no way to stop a micro-jump Maw combo from taking a large chunk out of your fleet and giving the VL player resources to boot. If there's a problem with the Maw it's not the potential magnitude of the effect- it's the lack of adaquate counter-options.
Anyway, as you clearly prefer to finish the games using the conventional means instead of I WIN buttons, i would suggest you ask the devs for the ON/OFF switch regarding Superweapons/Titans instead of trying to nerf these things to the point, where getting them or not becomes all the same to you.
This is a gross exaggeration. just about every other titan is perfectly fine and they are still complete gamechangers(even the weakest ones). Yes, ALL titans and ALL tools for that matter should have a suitable tradeoff that the disadvantages of building them early are comparable to the advantages- otherwise it's not strategy it's a nobrainer. Titans should be A tool in your repertoire, not THE tool.
Again I take a conservative stance that we should see how the desperation changes shake out first, but the chance that the vorastra will need some more work afterwards is far from insignificant. Also as I said, I think if anything Micro Phase Jump is more the problem then the Maw- so if it should be deemed necessary after the enxt patch that may be a better area to focus upon.
Then again to be fair for me this discussion isn't even about the Vorastra anymore. What I'm more argueing against is your mindset- in reality in my mind I'm arguing with every other player across multiple games I've played who I've seen argue the "Never use nerfs, do all balancing via buffs" point. I have a long history of thinking this point of view is impractical at best and in most cases very bad for long term game balance.