that might be a glitcht that the other starbases cannot target more than one opponent

I think they DO need range of about half the gravity well, honestly. They need to be able to cover an entire side to hit targets jumping in or out, or it is just too easy to go around them.

Also, did I mention that having the Vasari one move sucks? A scout comes into the system it chases it to the other side, then it's totally out of position when the real fleet comes through (not that being in position helps with their god-awful range, but even so!)

I'm not sure I WANT my starbase to move, but it really, really needs a hold position command.

My current thought is for TEC to get a range boost (currently missle frigates out range it) Advent to get free strike craft and fore all 3 to have flack plus flack upgrades.

I'm going to add another voice to the list of people agreeing that the starbase's range sucks, and needs to do more damage. I'd adjust it so that the starbase is somewhat smaller visibly, and orbits the planet inside the area structures can't be build. In gravity wells without planets, it would simply sit in the middle and think dangerous thoughts. That's for TEC and Advent starbases, Vasari ones already move around, so adjust them so that they only move when given a move or attack order ... I'm sick and tired of them chasing a lone scout around the system to a corner that puts them far out of position when a real attack comes in.

I'd also like to see a few changes made to the way starbases are run :

1. Changing costs for upgrades. Make the first level of an upgrade worth X resources, second level worth X+50%, third worth X+100%, and so on. Also, some upgrades worth more than others, such as a trade upgrade being more expensive than a self-destruct upgrade.

2. Constructibility being adjusted. Starbases as an offensive tactic? Please, no. You can't set up a starbase in a gravity well controlled by an enemy. Friendly and neutral gravity wells are acceptable, but not in an enemy well. A Vasari starbase constructed itself and came to pay my starbase a visit. Should not happen.

3. Construction adjustment. Make it so that it takes at least two or three times as long to build, and it's even more vulnerable to damage. Shields don't go up until construction is 100%, and it only goes up to whatever percentage the hull is at when it does.

4. Tweaks for upgrades. 2 squadrons per hangar upgrade makes it a pitiful fighter/bomber home even when fully upgraded. Make it 3 squadrons per upgrade for TEC and Vasari, and 4 for Advent. Make weapons actually have the range and damage to do more than threaten to make the enemy repaint their ships for the victory parade. The trade upgrades get an extra level or two and make it a real powerhouse. TEC construction bay starts at 100% speed and upgrades to 200% speed.

I also think building a STARBASE in enemy system is rediculouis. These are massive structures that in reality no planet would just sit back and let you build. Build times longer. Greater damage. More strike craft. Long range weapons(50% grav well or like pji). But this should be an upgrade and should only be missiles. Planet defense linked to starbase so that they MUST engage it. Fighter defense. While im on the subjesct of fighter defense carriers should be slower and no structure should build fighters while in battle. its rediculouis. They jump in and fly around and even if you destroy all the fighters your ships cant catch them and they constantly build new fighters.Repair and resupply would not happen in combat. Its annoying when you take out a squad then all your fighters chase the new squad that built a few seconds later. Fighters need better management. Like if you outnumber enemy squads only 2 squads should attack 1 enemy so the rest can be useful else where. One of the main purpose of sb is to seriously dampen pillaging and just ransacking ur entire empire. So we need some seriously annoying pji towards friendly planets or phase lane mines or something that will make bypassing a sb extremely annoying but not impossible. You should be under some fire if you choose a go around. Im sorry but I see no use in building an expensive defense structure that can effectively defend nothing. The vasari can keep there movement and get a close range weapons buff which is one of the points of being mobile.On a side note most of the time in my experience when someone attacks you and they have carriers(in multi) they have at least 10-20 minimum unless they are rushing most of the time more. so thats like 40 squads. Hangers need a serious buff cause a measely 2 or 3 per hanger dont cut it for nothing. They are basically worthless unless you fill every tactical slot with them and they still worthless lol. Then you cant build cannon defense or repair bays or pji all the cool stuff. The vanilla sins was so close to being balanced I really wish we could see these finished up here.

Moving starbases are not the answer.  Longer range weapons seems workable.  Avoid clipping issues with the planet by making them LR missiles.  They have to be able to cover at least one third to half of the grav well to be even remotely useful.  They need other capabilities to encourage the enemy to engage them if they want to proceed to another system you control, or to destroy your colony (if one exists there).  The starbase weapons currently seem rather anemic.  They really aren't very hard to destroy.  I think they need to be beefed up a bit, and that they need to take longer to build.  Flak cannons are essential!  If you try to build in enemy space, I think that build time should probably double at least.  Consider it the price of attempting to build in enemy controlled space.  It's just hard to get the building inspector to show up on time

I'm in agreement with most of you on this one--I'm thinking Starbases definitely need to take mor time and resources to build, and they need to be faster...stronger...and longer-ranged.  Ironclad can do it; they have the technology

To put it a bit more seriously, the current state of Starbases is somewhat ridiculous.  Carriers destroy them, and even a fairly small fleet can take one down without too much trouble, particularly when you're Vasari and get Phase Missiles.  Plus they don't have nearly the range they'd need to effectively defend a gravity well--as it stands, they're basically just glorified Gauss Turrets.

if you purchase the precision beam upgrade for Advent the turrets actually have more range than a SB Somethings not right here

I know this is beta...but the devs dropped the ball on this one. Starbases were supposed to make our jaws drop, but this supposed behmoth is a wuss.

Plus whats with the clipping? cap ships flying thru my starbase?

what do you guys think of somebody starting a thread like "Wish List From Beta Community" and making a list of the things and changes we want as a community. Like we could vote on stuff to make sure the majority rules. Maybe we could throw in balance changes also. This way the devs have an easy to read list of what everybody wants.

I don't think the majority of people would design the best game. Developers need to take into account all the feedback and decide which would make the most pleasant game. A democratic vote on it will not necessarily produce the best game for everyone.'

example.

Option A goes well with B but not C or D

Option D goes well with option C but not A or B

Most people like options A and D but together they just end up being a weak product.

From my view, the gamers are the researches that profide info. They can definitely provide feedback, but it's ultimately up to the professional developers to look at the info and solve the real problems present. I do not think a vote will bring about that kind of action. The majority of people do not view games critically and will most likely not think critically when offereing their suggestions. They will give more biased assumptions that are influenced by play style and play preference.

My suggestion would be to create a list that describes the problems present and the issues that need solving. A vote on what issues need solving first would definitely help bring up the most important issues affecting gameplay and prioritize those issues for the dev. team.

Aside from assuming that the devs always know best, I'll agree with you. But "devs always know best" is the thinking that gave us Earth & Beyond.

And tell me if you agree with me here, but I strongly dislike the idea of making everyone's starbases mobile, and vehemently dislike the idea of a phase-jumping starbase. ANYBODY'S phase-jumping starbase. The heck kind of base goes from place to place?

well tkins that why it would be called wish list.

My suggestion would be to create a list that describes the problems present and the issues that need solving. A vote on what issues need solving first would definitely help bring up the most important issues affecting gameplay and prioritize those issues for the dev. team.

thats basically what i was sayin

No matter what else they deceide to do all starbases deffinetly need a range increase

Aboslutely right, I didn't mean for it to come off as "they always know best". The phrasing should denote "it is their job to know best"

I also strongly disagree with moving starbases and really strongly disagree with phase jumping bases. The vasari moving base is neat, if they can make it work i'll be down with it, but keep it unique to that faction.

A phase jumping base would be a super capital ship or titan ship.

Then I think you're on the right track!

Also, I'm going to suggest that starbases don't need to be limited to one per gravity well. Make it possible to stack a couple of them, but they have to be a certain distance apart. Nobody wants to see a starbase spam at the end of a phase line, but if you could have three or four spaced out far enough to let an attacker fight them one at a time, it'd be a way to better defend a gravity well without being a game-breaker.

All star bases should get a range increase at least, and fighter squadron numbers should be upped to 7-8 squadrons, and with an option to upgrade even further from that. Also, an upgrade to allow even more squadrons, and a tech research to allow the auto-cannons on the sb to hit fighters. A weapon that can reach across the entire grav well is impossible to beat. Ships would die before they even reached their own range of the enemy. However, half of a third of the grav well is more realistic, and would make an enemy wonder how far your weapons can really reach, so they're more circumspect in their attacks.

Sbs themselves shouldn't be mobile, but slow tugs should be built to allow movement in the grav well, to move the sb from planet to phase line A, phase line A to phase line B, etc.

A phase jumping capital ship is a horrible idea. That would be worse then a super capital ship. A ship that can abosrb the damage of an entire fleet, is mobile, and can destroy entire fleets fully upgraded?

And what, now a sb can lock an entire fleet out of phase space from traveling to other allied planets, but not from traveling back to the enemy systems and to the neutral systems? I don't even think their is a technology in exsistense that can lock a fleet out of phase space in all directions, much less only 2 instead of 4...

I think you misunderstood somebody's phase-locking idea, but I didn't really see a way to incorporate it into the game in a sense-making way, so I just ignored the original idea.

And I'm going to second the idea of technologies that let you add an extra squadron or two to hangars. Those things are kind underpowered, and I'd appreciate them being a little more useful.

Of course, this is a thread for Starbase ideas, so it's not really germane to the conversation.

I don't think there is anything wrong with building a star base in an enemy well.  However, such a tactic is and should be extremely risky, requiring some sort of escort fleet to protect it.  But building a starbase in an enemy well simply allows for too many delicious tactical possibilities to be removed from the game.

I've stated in other threads that star bases should initially require large amounts of resources and time to construct.  However, you could make the costs conditional to where the starbases is being built.  Neutral areas build with a standard amount of resources and time, while building in friendly areas recieves a bonus and building in enemy wells recieves a penalty. This means throwing a base up to provide defense would be fairly simple, but building an "offensive" base would require much more forethought and planning.

That's a terrible idea.  Already you have to fight one in just about every enemy planet.  Multiple starbases coupled with mines, plus various upgraded defenses?  A turtler's wetdream maybe, but an awful game breaker.

Starbases should definetly get bigger range, no matter what happens. At least half the gravity well.

I support the idea that you can have more than one SB in a gravity well, but the number should be limited depending on the type of planet it is. Uncolonizable planets and dead asteroids should only be able to have one. Regular asteroids can have two. Planets (desert, terran, ice, etc) can have three, and stars can have 4-5. Even if you quadrupled the range of the SBs, they can't even cover a quater of a star. Its completly pointless to build one on a star, and I remember one of the devs (Craig I think) saying that it would become a new strategy.

They should start with 4-5 squads of strikecraft (6-7 for the Advent) and can be upgraded from their. Who would seriously design a massive space station and not put hangers on it? They should also get flak or some sort of anit-fighter weapons.

I think that the Vasari SB should be able to phase jump, but it can't jump to planets that already have a friendly SB on it, or is under construction. The other two races both got anti-structure ships, but the Vasari base is their anti-structure ship. It's second weapon upgrade is an anti-building weapon. As it is, its pointless to jump in a contructor and have it build one, because if it survives long enough to get built, its completly unupgraded, and can't actually kill another starbase. If you let in jump, then you can get an upgraded one to an enemy planet and actually have a chance of defeating the other SB.

Personally, I like the idea of offensive starbases, although it doesn't work very well with the TEC and Advent because you have to build them in range of whatever you want to kill.

I'm undecided on whether or not all SB's should move, but if you give the Vasari one the ability to jump, then you would almost have to give the others the ability to move.

Just my 2 cence.

Now, i am not playing the beta game, but after reading the posts. I came up with several idea's and see 

what you guys think.

First off I like all your ideas, but how about also limiting the number of starbases that you can build to

around 5. This would help prevent players from dropping a base at every planet and since these things

are supposed to be so powerful, you should only have a limited supply of them (i am aware that there is already a limit, i just think it should be more restrictive).

Secondly, about the starbase movement and phasing problem. How about we take another approach to it. Instead of allowing the starbase to move and phase to different planets. Let's let the starbase pack itself up. In other words, when you order it to pack itself up, it breaks down the structure and loads it onto a ship that can move or phases to another gravity well, and then can be reconstructed in 2/3 of the time that is takes to construct a starbase, and not wasting any resources or levels that you achieved. (ps, that transport ship is unable to attack)

This will allow players to move their starbases when they get more territory, and at the same time allows the 5 starbase limit to be not so much of a hindrence. 

oh yah, and there should be a limit to 1 starbase per planet. Anything more is overkill.

After giving the matter some though, my assessment is fairly simple.  In terms of damage output and tanking ability, the SB's feel about right, except the Transcencia which is... buggy and curiously underpowered considering it's listed damage output.  I suspect it's weapons, particularly it's default Plasma Cannons, miss a hell of a lot.

Range, for all starbases, seems to be a rather major issue - people have, thus far, proposed some rather ludicrous buffs to starbase attack ranges, oftentimes suggesting that they should cover a significant majority of a given gravity well.

I, however have a different idea, consisting of pretty much two parts.  The first would indeed be a range increase, though not as extreme as most are proposing -- something along the lines of a 60 - 80% range increase for short and mid ranged weapons systems, and a ~50% increase to long range weaponry.

The second would be the ability for starbases and all other facilities (excluding, naturally, the Vasari Orkulus) to move in an orbital path around the world to which they're attached.  This would render circumventing defenses a far more difficult task.

Finally, Starbases are either vulnerable to the point of uselessness or completely bypassable while defending an unihabitable node.  Given the early information available, this does not seem to have been intended.  My suggestion for this problem is quite simple; over an inhabitable node, Starbases have options available to help increase the resilience and prevent colonization of said node (or are at least supposed to - they currently seem to be bugged.)  For a Starbase in an uninhabitable node, I suggest that this ability, which in such a place is useless anyway, be replaced by researched option that would allow the base to acquire a constructor and a number of tactical slots, which would allow for the creation of adequate defenses, locking the route down with phase inhibitors, etc.