Balance/Builds Analysis: Attempt to raise the level of the community

from Sins Forums
Every game I've played online has been a horribly 1-sided stompfest. We're not talking like oh wow I killed his cap ship, he resigned. We're talking I have 2000 pop, he has 150, or I lose 0 units, he loses 3 caps and 50 frigates. Time for the community to learn how to play this game properly.

Illums suck. There, I said it.

Why do they suck so much? Let's go over the details.

Illums split their dps 3 ways. Their single target dps is crap. This means any attempt at microing the useless turds is wasted, as you get higher dps output charging into melee range and wishing them good luck. This is even more true when you factor in shield mitigation. So, it is clear from this argument that Illums must melee to be at all effective.

What does this imply? Several things. First, why are LRMs (TEC specifically) so good? IT'S BECAUSE THEY HAVE DOUBLE THE RANGE OF Illums. Even if they DIDN'T, they'd still be the superior unit. 4 supply to 6, HALF as much crystal to create, and BETTER single target dps. If THAT'S not enough (and oh god it should be), their armor type DIRECTLY counters the poor Illums. Illum does 75% to the LRM, the LRM counters at a full 100%. So, in a straight up fight, the LRMs CRUSH the Illums. Yes, CRUSH. Even IF the Illums magically manage to close that enormous distance, the LRM player has the OPTION of just warping out after wiping out half the Advent fleet, OR staying and finishing off the forces.

So why are Advent good? Because of ridiculously powerful shield regen (mothership) and the shield mitigator cruisers. The Illuminator, is crap. It's total, unmitigated crap. The heavy cruiser (Crusader), if you bother to actually run the numbers, it far far far superior as a dps source. It's not even close. But, because the game is new, many players are confused about how to play the factions. So here it is, the ONLY way to play the factions, and I DARE anyone to prove me wrong. Note, this is for 1v1 only, and there's a brief 2v2 strat that is COMPLETELY 100% UNBEATABLE. As in, unless you KNOW it's coming and HARDCORE counter it, it will ALWAYS win.

SO PAY ATTENTION.

Tec: 1 cap ship (mazra or Kol 100%), 2 civil for trade early (medium maps only), 2 military for LRM, spam LRMs til they forfeit. If they get fighter/bomber, make flak. LRM/Flak is not counterable early game (Flak not needed unless they have Fighters). Tec should never lose a 1v1 on a small map, ever. 2v2, Tec always goes trade early, feeds his ally if ally is not Tec, pushes/pressures his opponent while his ally (Advent or Vasari) techs to super ships.

Advent: Only one reason to play Advent -> Cap ship + shield abuse. Get your Radiance early to counter any other cap ship hardcore (antimatter burn is ridiculously OP). Then, build whatever you need to secure bases. Build Illums if you have to, but Disciples are quite strong early. Eventually, get the Mothership (NOT OPTIONAL) for its superpowered shield regen. 3rd ship should either be another Mothership or the ship with +10,20,30% damage. Both are powerful. Get yourself some guardians, and then some source of dps (my favorite are crusaders). Then go kick some butt. You're basically unkillable unless they build shield disruption. EVEN THEN, you're still hard to kill, and you pack a big punch. As always, ignore fighters/carriers, flaks counter them COMPLETELY.

Vasari: NOT VIABLE 1v1 on most maps. Why? They suck. End of discussion. Their assailants are weaker versions of LRM, their cap ships suck, their special abilities suck. Viable in 1v1 on larger maps, for the same reason they are the BEST 2v2 race. Why? Fast rush that Dark Fleet. You can Dark Fleet off of TWO colonies, including your home. That's home planet + asteroid ---> Dark Fleet. Figure out the build yourself, but suffice it to say, with enough phase missile turrets, nobody can kill you early game, and late game is just ugly. 2v2, have your Tec ally feed you and watch the fun. It's. Great. Fun.

Now, if you think these builds are somehow wrong, feel free to prove me wrong. But, they aren't wrong, because people don't really look at stats. They just think "WOW this game JUST came out, so it MUST be balanced." WRONG. 99% of all games come out horribly unbalanced, and need to be fixed asap. The other 1% have no multiplayer community to find the unbalance.

For instance, Dark Fleet needs to have a pop cap (as in, you can only have 100 or 200 Dark Fleet ships total in your current fleet), and Vasari need a buff to their midgame force (and early game force, skirmishers suck).

At the very least, now you guys KNOW what builds I run, and HOPEFULLY present some sort of reasonable challenge before folding like little rag dolls. Thanks for your time.
strategy
24,555 views 63 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top
Oh no. Oh please, no no no. The moment that you begin sorting ships and factions into awesome or suck then devising "100% UNBEATABLE STRATEGY!"s is the moment that fun dies and the game turns into a clicking exercise circlejerk by people who laugh at anyone who tries anything that varies just a little bit while they crush them with the iron boot of the status quo uber strategy.
Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top
Are you kidding me zol? 1) game ballence then needs to be addressed by the makers and let the nerf wars begin. 2) there is no "100% unbeatable strat" as all strats have counters and when both are playing the so called "unbeatable strat" it comes down to multi and micro tasking abilities. 3) play any multiplayer game with some dolt who decides "i'ma gonna try buildin nothin but robo shipz!!!" and you wont see me laugh. it becomes a huge sad waste of time. its like having the retarded kid's class on your dodge ball team in highschool. fun for me is good competition, I take no pleasure in crushing noobs or having teamates or opponents who decide to try the "wacky strat" in attempts to ruin the game for everybody so they can have "fun".
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top
The beauty of this game is that your whine about an unbeatable strategy, is being drowned out by thousands of other whiners whining about unbeatable strategies that contradict everything you've just said.

You know your game is balanced, when nobody can agree on what is imbalanced.
Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top
LRMs only do 25% less damage to cap ships compared to Illuminators while still having far superior single target damage thanks to the inferior Illuminators only being able to fire upon the cap ship with one laser at a time. LRMs also require an entire military research lab less and cost less per unit. Try again. Even if you try to counter LRMs with carrier fighters, the only true counter, you will never be able to kill his cap ship or raid his planetary structures while he will still be able to easily kill yours, retreat, rebuild and reinforce with flak frigs or his own carriers, all the while having trade posts doubling (at least) his credit income compared to yours. Not to mention that a fighter squad takes ages to build up fully.

I've played around 40 1v1s with a friend equal in playing ability and this is the only balance related thread I can agree with. Most whine posts around here seem to be made by players playing FFA vs the AI on slow and then coming into MP wondering why they're getting their asses kicked. More specifically the ones still complaining about Siege frigates.

Also, having random planets on the original maps is stupid. It's completely unfair to get a bad (tier 2 civic research required) planet when the other gets a desert or whatever planet in the corresponding location. This isn't quite so bad on maps where you can get an asteroid as your first expansion, but on maps where you can't this will increase your chances of getting owned severely.
Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top
I've played around 40 1v1s with a friend equal in playing ability and this is the only balance related thread I can agree with. Most whine posts around here seem to be made by players playing FFA vs the AI on slow and then coming into MP wondering why they're getting their asses kicked. More specifically the ones still complaining about Siege frigates.


After a while you learn your buddies tricks. You learn his moves. You learn what he does. After a while it's just pulling out what you know he doesn't know how to counter. So basically you spam LRMs and he decides that a good counter is flak frigs. That doesn't make ANYONE have a better voice in balance. Play a few hundred games against OTHER PEOPLE. Understand the game first. Then give balance.
Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top
I have. The others are simply worse than playing the AI. The point wasn't to claim that I nor anyone else is perfectly experienced with the game in all ways. I was reinforcing the OP based on my personal experience with the game in 1v1 playing with and against every faction. Conveniently you seem to have ignored the OP.

"So basically you spam LRMs and he decides that a good counter is flak frigs. That doesn't make ANYONE have a better voice in balance."

Nice strawman. What's your point again? Oh, you never had one. Screaming "It's too early to change anything!" is stupid. Voicing concerns so devs can read them and test for themselves isn't. I can guarantee you that no matter how many smaller 1v1s you will ever play, neither Advent nor Vasari will ever be as viable early game as TEC given current balance. LRM spam is far from the only reason why this is. Advent can turn the table if they're allowed to acquire various shield boosting tech and trade posts, but the TEC player can always finish them off long before they get that far.
Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top
did your friend micro the flaks so they hit 3 to 4 targets and not 1? and was he only building flaks (if so, thats his prime mistake).
Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top
Of this entire thread. The only thing I can truly agree with is the need for Balanced Starts on Multiplayer.
Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top
"Even if you try to counter LRMs with carrier fighters, the only true counter, you will never be able to kill his cap ship or raid his planetary structures while he will still be able to easily kill yours, retreat, rebuild and reinforce with flak frigs or his own carriers, all the while having trade posts doubling (at least) his credit income compared to yours."

Note the difference, carrier fighters means fighters based on a carrier. Funnily enough, the TEC player could also counter either by building more Cobalts and sending them after the carriers/flak frigs, and at the same time assassinating your cap ship/structures (specifically research buildings) with his LRMs and retreating to build more counter ships.

That together with earlier trade posts and the fact that a Kol is the far better cap ship killer before lvl 6 than the Radiance, spells a guaranteed win. Advent needs 3 military and 3 civic to compete with TECs 2/2 and even then pretty much all of the counters except Illuminators > Cobalts are meh. Only when you throw enough Guardians at the problem does the battle begin to tip in your favor. Long before that happens however you should already be dead or else he will learn that being too passive is a mistake.
Reply #11 from Sins Forums Top
blah blah


You're wrong.
Reply #12 from Sins Forums Top
Brilliant counter argument there.

While I'm not one of the hardcore number-crunching APM RTS players (which makes me totally uncompetitive in MP, but I don't mind), the game undeniably has balance problems. The trick is working out where the problem is: separating cause from effect. LRMs are powerful, but depending on your perspective this is due to a number of factors, any of which could be changed separately. An early-game ship that's cheap, has huge range and very high DPS? That's a problem, but working out what to change is the real question. Making LRMs later-game would lose some TEC character, so I'd rather see an element of their cost/effectiveness changed.

The absolute worst thing that can happen is everyone tries to whinge louder than everyone else, and the devs make unhelpful changes that fix nothing and the nerf-cycle starts. Even pre-patch I never had a problem with either pirates or seige frigates, but the unit/faction balance is a more serious problem.
Reply #14 from Sins Forums Top
Ban him all you like, it doesn't make the game less unbalanced.
Reply #15 from Sins Forums Top
It's very easy to balance the game as is, but this is the wrong place to post it.

Suffice to say, my opinion on the LRM is a pop increase (4-6) and a crystal increase (20->40), leaving everything else as is. This would make it cheaper creditwise than the illum, same pop, lower hp, lower metal cost. It STILL has higher single target dps, and STILL beats illums 1v1, and is STILL a lower tier tech unit. So why not? Why are assailants 6 pop and LRMs 4? It makes no sense.

After playing some games with Vasari, I think they ARE viable with fast assailant spam and map control with 4-5 navigators, but anytime past early game, they are horrible vs Advent or Tec in a straight fight. If you can prove me wrong, by all means give some reasons. The people who are offended by the post are also the ones with no interest in understanding the game. :(
Reply #16 from Sins Forums Top
Folks, keep in mind that finding imbalances in the game is a GOOD THING. It allows for the devs to fix it and make a superior game with superior gameplay.

While the original poster is unapologetically rude, he's doing far more to improve the game than his detractors.

New multiplayer games need tweaking to improve. Developers that provide the best support for their game are the ones constantly tweaking things to make it better and funner.

The original poster is not bashing Ironclad at all. I'm sure he loves the game as it's a very good one. But to think that it is immaculate and the simplest tweak is speaking heresy is rediculous and a bad community.

I won't comment on the OP's points, except to say they all have a certain degree of validity to them. What I would like is for people to remember that it's up to the Dev's and the community to improve the game, and those that are calling for a ban are absolutely absurd and a narrow-minded fool.
Reply #17 from Sins Forums Top
To the OP ..

Play larger maps! You're unbeatable strategy goes all to hell when you play larger maps! Even if you play FFA and 10 players the game dynamic is completely different. I agree that LRM's are like light (or maybe better) Cruisers early, and cheap ones at that, but position is really, really important on larger maps. Tactics are important, micro, micro, micro!! I make tons of three and four ship fleets and micro them to focus fire on ANY ship that is giving me problems. Especially early, a few 3 and 4 ship fleets in a task force can rain hell on unsuspecting victims. I carry this philosophy into the late game as well. It gets tougher to deal with of course, but for the really important battles, there is nothing like clicking on your fleets individually and smoking everything in sight. :)

One other note: I rarely build one-trick-pony SPAMS of any ship. I want my opponent to wonder why he just got his arse kicked, and not tie it to one specific ship build. In battle, variety is the key, and so is micro. Some can micro and think they can run their empire whilst engaged in battle .. Not against me they can't, because they'll be losing ships and wondering why they did. I'd gladly lose a few heavy cruisers to wipe out a 50 ship SPAM of LRMS .. LOL



Tim-
Reply #18 from Sins Forums Top
Well, there is still a point to Illuminators, you need to pay attention and micro them properly but positioning them so that their arcs of fire can hit multiple targets. That probably involves using the Z Axis and coming from an angle - either way, Illuminators will require top notch micro to maximize but relying on disciples is sheer madness.

That being said, the biggest problem all of you are truly facing is that Stardock/ICO refuses to set a standard for the game - without a STANDARD we cannot balance anything. Is the game okay for 1v1? 2v2? 3v3? FFA? There is no ladder, there is nothing, no real goal in multiplayer making balancing all the more difficult. Nerf one thing and in team games it might become trivial, nerf another and the early game in a 1v1 might be non-existent.

Furthermore, there are a lot of factors such as galaxy size/starting resources/resources around the planets near you. Too many variables. I do not see it in Stardock's game design philosophy to establish a standard which means multiplayer will be polluted with mods and other things. In essence, everything said here is mostly in vain and MP will die out slowly. I will warn you just like I did to others in another thread:

We need to come up with a standard and then fight it out on those maps before thinking of truly nerfing or buffing. So far, Stardock's balances are superfluous (who really cared much about siege vessels save vs the AI or pirates for that matter or any of those other tweaks) and have had no real impact on player vs player conflicts.

Reply #19 from Sins Forums Top
Honestly, I have a hard time analyzing a game once the map increases in size and player number increases. This is mainly due to increasing variables and lack of control.

Most of my points are almost certainly invalid on larger maps.

But my argument for right now is competitive multiplayer pvp (not ffa), so 2v2 or 1v1.

And to all those people who support what I'm doing, Props! :)
Reply #20 from Sins Forums Top

To the OP ..

Play larger maps! You're unbeatable strategy goes all to hell when you play larger maps! Even if you play FFA and 10 players the game dynamic is completely different. I agree that LRM's are like light (or maybe better) Cruisers early, and cheap ones at that, but position is really, really important on larger maps. Tactics are important, micro, micro, micro!! I make tons of three and four ship fleets and micro them to focus fire on ANY ship that is giving me problems. Especially early, a few 3 and 4 ship fleets in a task force can rain hell on unsuspecting victims. I carry this philosophy into the late game as well. It gets tougher to deal with of course, but for the really important battles, there is nothing like clicking on your fleets individually and smoking everything in sight


I've seen more worthless posts in my life but I digress. You're really missing the point. Larger maps may change the dynamic but is it an excuse to make smaller maps completely imbalanced? No , not really. Furthermore, if that's the case why even have smaller maps? And aside from stating the obvious, you have yet to show any replays of your work or contribute to this thread.

To those of you who think my retort was pointless, I am merely pointing out what not to say in a thread such as this. Consider your arguments carefully.
Reply #21 from Sins Forums Top
HuntingX,

There is a problem with your scenario, we really don't know what Stardock intends by having competitive multiplayer. In a matter of fact, if anything else this game seems more oriented to FFAs.

Reply #22 from Sins Forums Top
So I played as Vasari 1v1 for the first time today in multiplayer, trying to test out my theories. Most of the games were quite poor, but 1 of them vs Jinx was pretty interesting as far as builds went.

To be fair, the map was not great for me. There were 0 neutral extractors despite the map being enormous and his Advent was far from me (6 jumps to his first expansion). This means that my normal idea of assailant rushing didn't really do much damage. Even worse, he started his build with Drone carriers. That's actually the point of this whole discussion, how do we counter LRMs? Ignoring the game (which ended up being a tie due to time constraints), the idea of using fighters to counter LRM type units is interesting. Clearly, they are the natural counter, but I was under the assumption that they would just get fried by the flak (I had 10 sentinels).

However, with proper fighter micro, and shield regen/guardian use, he was able to keep many of his fighters alive while picking apart my assailants. Even worse, in our first encounter I had no flak, so I lost 4-5 assailants escaping from his army.

So, is it viable in a smaller map for Advent to rush Carriers (tier 2) and attempt an early economic lead? Clearly, once I DID build flak, he didn't continue producing carriers exclusively. So, is it possible for a Advent to obtain early map control with drone cruisers before transitioning to either crusaders or illuminators? Also, it might be good to reduce the HP on flak frigates. They aren't worth killing first because of their ridiculous hp. Vasari is just too weak on some maps, fleetwise and capital ship wise, to compete with a midgame Advent on even keel. But would a similar strat beat back a LRM rusher?
Reply #23 from Sins Forums Top
Defense Vessel > LRM. Toss up malice and POOF they vanish.
Reply #24 from Sins Forums Top
Vasari: NOT VIABLE 1v1 on most maps.


one day later...
So I played as Vasari 1v1 for the first time today


It's great to start discussions about potential balance problems, but there's no need to act as if you are the definitive master of the game
Reply #25 from Sins Forums Top
I really stand by that statement, even now.

After some testing, Vasari are ONLY viable on a small portion of maps (at least, I had little to no success on most maps, maybe because I'm using the wrong strategy).

Assailants are tier 1 tech compared to tier 2 tech for LRMs, but the cost difference translates to 1 additional ship. Unfortunately, they are worse in almost every way (and, generally speaking, much much worse).

The Vasari capital ships are generally worse than their Tec counterparts (Repair hull is sooooo bad, power weapons is pretty lame, etc.), and they are cost inefficient.

The real reason Vasari CAN do well is because they can steal neutral extractors. So if there are a TON of neutral extractors on the map, they can do well. It's even better if the map is small, so they can leverage the early income advantage into an assailant/sentinel/etc push. If the map is big, and there are no neutral extractors, Vasari really are gimped compared to Tec.

So, as to YOUR point, I was TESTING what I originally claimed, and I believe my original claim. Where's the inconsistency?