Hoping for better home defence

Planets in SINS aren't something to be held onto too tightly. What I mean is, use planets for strategic reasons, but when those 200+ enemies phase-in.....get the hell outta dodge!  :p 

Then, when they're bombarding your planet and have almost killed every last person on your planet (people are the "fly-tape" in SINS...hehe) you come back with 3 fleets from three directions.....ooo I can tast the sweetness.

Since SINS is geared so much at "mobility", static defenses shouldn't be used for anything other than holding off a few pesky pirate-raiders.

I doubt very much that SINS will ever be changed to focus more on "static defending" (turtling is not what SINS is about). In every (online MP game) I've played so far, any amount of resources spent on "static defenses" would have been better spent on fleet or research.

...just my opinion

Which sort of brings the question of why static defences are offered in the first place?

This IS an issue, if they aren't worth their cost don't just leave them there for suckers to buy.

But they are worth it if you have the money to spare. What I believe the monk is trying to say is, most games don't last long enough for that money to be sparable in multi, but if you play a 6 hour game against the AI, eventually you will have enough to make it worth it.

What i don't like about this game is that there's no front. An enemy can just fly to your home base, 10 planets in from your supposed "front" without meeting resistance.
It's bullshit, to be frank.
Gravity wells should be static and constant on any planets with phase lanes that connect between 2 planets owned by the same team, or same person.

this is really what modding is for

hint hint nudge nudge

That's basically why you have some basic defenses in the game. If your enemy slips by several planets, and start attacking your homeworld. The defense systems will keep the enemy fleet busy, and hopefully hurt them quite a bit, before your fleet comes in to stop the raid (and hopefully destroy their entire fleet). The reason for the defense systems is not to focus on defending your planet, but instead delay and damage your opponent.

That's crap - they didn't meet resistance because they went around your units. Look what happened to France in 1940 - German's did the same thing - ended up hitting them in the rear and drove for Paris. A good example of The Monk's point on a mobile defence force. If you had the intel to know where the front really was, you would have responsed...

This is an interesting topic. I have an opinion on it, but for the life of me. I can't figure out why its under the Beta Feedback Header? In the context of the SINS Universe, the defenses are appropriate. They weren't needed and now your in the thick of it. They are what they are and I use them when appropriate. Don't change a thing for me.

this is p. much rationalizable for any single gameplay problem ever

the battleships shoot donuts instead of missiles? well IN THE SINS UNIVERSE,

Look I have a had a bad day and maybe you don't deserve this.

If indeed they shot donuts, then that is what we would have to deal with isn't it? Well isn't it.

Everyone posts in the damn beta thread and no one talks about the beta.

Its all this conjecture, why don't we change this into an entirely different game where you can have battles in space or the defenses do something entirely different than they way they operate in SINS. So when I say in the SINS universe, I mean stick to the subject.

Thats what we got it works, it fits with the lore as well.

So well in the sins universe Carbon16 got slingshotted into the sun, and was entirely disintegrated. Never to be seen or heard from again.

Edit: Yes I agree, a mod is where this stuff belongs not in the beta thread. Sorry I let loose, it was just building  If and when I do create a mod there of course will be a Carbon16 disintegrator included

If you need static defense, you are doing something wrong already. Ideally you already know where your enemy is and have some fleet waiting to intercept him when he comes to attack.



Exactly.



Can you spell Phase Jump Inhibitor? Would be a stupid enemy that attempts to fly past your front. Half his fleet would be dead before he's even past the first planet.

Well, it is "kind'a" a beta topic, since Hanger defences have more teeth now. But the turrets :/ I still wish they had something like double the range, but half the firepower. Whenever there is a unit everyone says "you should never build/buy that", then some kind of balence is off.

They really buffed the Jump Inhibitors the last patch or two, so they are worth it to get sometimes I think; the AI used them on me all 3 games in 1.09, and it really shocked me (and worked too, as they had more than enough time to bring in reinforcements).

I agree with Paladin, if a unit is almost completely redundant then perhaps its balance does need a tweak. This kinda makes me think of the Babylon 5 universe when Earth had quite a powerful defense grid, attacking forces had to be large and work very hard to take out the defense grid, which I thought was a nice concept. I agree a fleet is always a good thing, but the option of a powerful defensive strategy would be an enhancement I think. I also like the idea of battlestations e.g. in master of orion, which could defend the planet. It would also enhance the Vasari Kostura cannon if the cannon could cripple such defenses (i.e. if they are used more often due to tweaking) and allow for an attack e.g. Narn / Drazi fleets hitting Centauri Prime in B5 lol

Keep well.

It's pretty obvious most people don't play 9-AI FFA games to see how static defenses are useful.

Go ahead, try a game without them and see how you do

Defenses won't be changed, they've been like this since beta and survived many "buff defenses" threads.

There are fronts , because fronts are neccessitated by the logistics of reinforcements. Fight on the frontline allows quick reinforcements. Decide to go past the frontline and you risk being overwhelmed by an equal player with closer reinforcement points.

I think the OP is saying that he sees a balance issue with the beta, and he would like it fixed in the finalized patch. I agree that generally these things should be in a mod forum or maybe a general forum, but by the same token, what's the point of a beta forum if people don't post in there 1.) what bugs exist in the beta and 2.) balance/gameplay issues that some SINS players have grievances with? Besides, although I can't really say from anything else other than conjecture, I'd figure that the beta forum gets a little more attention in regards to development than the other ones.

Personally, if a change is made to the SINS game that adds both quality gameplay and holds the general "feel" of the game, then I don't think that it should belong in a mod, I think it should be incorporated to the game that I paid for.

(Yes I know that I also paid for the ability to use mods, I'm just saying that... well, I'd like the change to be "official"? To make the "foundation" of the game to be superior to what it was before.)

My two cents: this game clearly isn't a game where the developers wanted people to be able to turtle versus other human players by simply using static defenses. However, I think that static defenses should be given a little more "oomph" so that they aren't just generally ignored in a late-game scenario (1 - 1.5 hours or more). Maybe make turrets take more tactical slots, do less damage, but have much longer range and potentially an area of effect attack. Why? Because it's just as effective versus a small battle fleet as it is versus a larger one if it can hit large clumps of vessels. Again, balance would be critical here, but they should at least make the things a little more than an annoyance... they should be threatening enough to be calculated into an attacker's list of worries, but not enough to push the favor for the defender by any more than 25%.

Also, with the recent heralding of super strike craft, I think a separate turret that does anti-strikecraft damage exclusively would be nice too.

Well said Dead-

You make your points quite eloquently. I find my self at a slight disadvantage, since I know what OP means by context only. It actual definition eludes me. Gameplay and balance issues are indeed important and during the development Betas 1-4, feedback of this type would be appropriate. In fact this may be where the Devs want them even now.

My not liking them here is entirely for selfish reasons. In my mind the content of the 1.1 patch has already been determined. Beta Feedback to me is 1) Identification and Verification of bugs resulting from or directly related to recent changes made to the program. 2) Figuring out scenarios to prove that the changes listed in the changelog are operating as expected. Some bugs reveal themselves, others you have to manufacture the conditions, so the change can be proven to be effective.

I realize this is a fairly narrow interpretation, but given that interpretation I would like to be able to review the bugs that have been reported and condense them into a summary. While still finding time to get time behind the wheel on playtesting. When you have so many posts that are asking for new content, before you have even verified the current content. It begins to further fragment. Due to bugs being reported multiple times, since there is no way to quickly scan and say oh yeah, thats the same bug. I'll just add mine to it as a confirmation.

I understand it never does actually stay that organized but its at least the model of what Beta Feedback means to me.

Since I'm just a tester like everyone else, that is just one persons point of view. Mine and I am not claiming that it is correct for this Beta. I was just frustrated yesterday trying to put together a buglist to post and try and cut down on multiple reporting. So my bad. Thanks all for you patience, if I get out of line I just need slapped to bring me back to my senses. I can be a real bag'o'wind when I get going. :HOT: Original Poster?

I kinda wonder if Static defense should remain static
They are in space right? theres no reason you cant strap and engine to it and have it orbit the planet like a moon shooting down the enemy.
not to mention they are a little underwhelmed considering the new Strike craft enhancement.

This was shot down too, a long time ago - with the idea being that you need to decide what you want to defend, rather than being able to move them anywhere you like (ie, have all of them in range of the jump-in point from where you know the enemy will be coming.

I gotta hand it to you, you do make a good point. The dev's did indeed post a changelog, and that's what they are planning to add/edit for the next patch. I had kind of missed the whole point that they have already decided what they wanted to change, and we, as beta testers, are supposed to figure out if those changes work as they had outlined them. Thanks for reminding me

So then this leaves me with your original point: where does someone post something like this? Since I agree with your general definition of what belongs in the beta forum, I suppose that the next best place would be under the "general" forum. In a perfect world, maybe there would be a forum specifically for player feedback of game balance... but we'll make do. Or maybe I've missed one the entire time?

Regardless--hat's off to you Foe

Edit:
And I like this idea too. The OP in this post wants a separate forum sub-section opened specifically as a place that players can post what direction they'd like SoaSE to evolve towards.
https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/177610/#1825818

I don't want a turtle game either, but, Sins "is" filled about 1/4rth what Tactical stuff you can build around a planet. Problem is, most people say "never build that".

Exactly PurplePaladin. I think that having something worth building is extremely important. I know some might argue that repair bays can account for that 25% if enough of them are present. That's nice, I can appreciate that--however, then what exactly is the point of a defense turret besides an "annoyance" or "something I put next to my hangar defenses/repair bays to punish someone who comes close".

Like I said; there should be a better way to make defensive structures that actually fight back a little more viable. Heck, add some options to unlock features on a turret besides quick capacitors and whatnot. I'm certainly not pushing for a turtle game whatsoever; it's just surprising that the devs did such a good job with balancing many of the vessels that they seem to have overlooked the multiplayer viability of static defenses.

I just don't want to see turrets go the way that anti-strikecraft frigates are :x That being extremely narrow-band useage.

all my mods feature this, you're so behind the curve

A little more food for thought:

Incorporate the ability to build a "foundation" turret, and then build specific add-ons to that turret. Maybe different firing arcs, different weapon systems, or having improved ranges in a certain arc so that someone could "point" a turret at a phase lane junction, but sacrifices the ability to take down ships once they move past that firing arc. I'm certainly not pushing for a turtle game whatsoever; it's just surprising that the devs did such a good job with balancing many of the vessels that they seem to have overlooked the multiplayer viability of static defenses. I think that with proper balancing, defensive turrets can add a whole new dimension to the game, without slowing the pace of a match down, and without throwing a turtle shell option into gameplay.

Maybe I'm playing Devil's advocate here, but is the turtle style of play not still a strategy some players may want to try? Gamers often attack particular styles of play calling it 'scaly' or 'noob' or 'unfair' etc etc, but I think a well balanced game that allows as many different play styles as possible is a true winner. Take the original starcraft for instance, you could turtle, sneak attack, directly attack, use special abilities etc etc. Most other strategy games do allow for defensive play styles, by eliminating that style, it makes the game less interesting in my opinion. It can be fun to try to crack a turtle's defenses and find and exploit his weaknesses. There are clever ways of defeating turtle players and it can make the game in question quite interesting (imo) if there is as much variety as possible. The statement 'don't ever build that' means that there is something missing i.e. balance in that area.

I have no problem with the turtlers, sneaks, bold attackers or even clever and manipulative backstabbers. It's a game afterall and every strategy deserves consideration. In a war game, like real war, you are justified in doing whatever is necessary to survive, even play defensively. The greater the number of combinations of play allowed, the more possible and varied endings one can have, and that for me = more fun

So I'm all for increasing defensive power in the hope that it opens up more possibilities.