traveurysm

Why all the star bases should move

▼

Why all the star bases should move

And why they don't right now

from Sins Forums

The thinking behind uses of the starbase are as follows:

Vasari bases are for area defense and economic boostage and importantly can be used as offensive weapons - jumping in an escort fleet to guard the starbase as it is constructed at the edge of the well, then leisurely strolling along and crushing everything in its path (and with frontal shields, that includes other starbases).

TEC Argonevs are for point defense and establishing forward bases. They can't move so their use in offense is approximately zero (not necessarily a bad thing as they have other strategic uses). 

Advent Transcencias are for (slightly larger) point defense and culture; they're a bit better at dominating no-man's-land areas like suns and roids than Argonevs but dont have as much straight-up military or industrial application.

On paper these dynamics work great, but in practice they have an unintended side effect: because Vasari bases can move to respond to a threat from any direction, they are much more effective for defense and destroying enemy fleets. TEC and Advent are forced to build their bases in as annoying a spot as possible, then buy offplanet government upgrades and spread other defenses all over. The enemy fleet jumps in, toasts everything but the base, then attacks the base on its own sweet time.

In other words, the mobility of the Vasari base means the Vasari bases are massively superior to their analogs. This can be balanced by

a) Giving the stationary bases massively extended range (not a good option because range any further than it currently is would make the base devastatingly OP).

b) Giving the bases engines. They should not be as fast as the Vasari base - in fact moving less than half that speed would still serve the purpose. This simply gives the player the flexibility to move the base to the place it can be most strategically effective while still being forced to think because it takes awhile to drag the base over there.

The designers are reasonably concerned that giving Argonevs and Transcencias mobility would give them the capacity to function as offensive weapons. But considering the ponderously slow speed of those bases, their application in an enemy well would be very limited. If this is still a concern, it shouldn't be difficult to add a stipulation that Argonevs and Transcencias cannot be built in grav wells controlled by enemies.

Players should be able to build a starbase, upgrade it up the wazoo, and have a solid confidence that the well it occupies is safe from any but very concerted attacks. Vasari players can do this. TEC and Advent players can't. Giving those players very slow engines would fix this.

PS. Love the Beta 2 changes ... weapon banks and mine balances make me happy. : )

219,744 views 81 replies
Reply #76 from Sins Forums Top

I think a phase jump DENIER (not inhibitor) should be buildable on the SB itself. Then it has to be faced, and taken out, before an enemy jumps further into a system. Then their point about moving tec and advent SBs becomes nil.

An interesting concept. If this was possible though I personally think it should take a fairly high researchable ability, or in some way should be reasonably difficult and or expensive to achieve. I also think it should be extra and not replace inhibitors all together.

(This is back to what I *thought* their concern was in the first place)... I think this point is wrong. The point of entrenchment, I thought, was that in the vanilla game, fleets had to defend systems, thus could not be out conquering other systems. It created a weird dynamic, and a catch-22. If you use your fleet for offense, your enemy will come into your wide open system. If you use your fleet for defense, you cannot be on offense, and it just seems a weird use of a fleet (the point of ships is that they MOVE - static defenses are for unmoving defense). If your point is that a fleet is STILL needed to vanguard your systems, then entrenchment really isn't buying us anything. An SB with "some support" (NOT an entire fleet) should be a formidable obstacle (note that I didn't say insurmountable obstacle).

Yeah! I thought the third paragraph I wrote pretty much reiterates this. You perhaps explained a bit better than me though.

Their response might be "screw that system - I'm worried about systems beyond that system!" This is why I thought the argument they were making was really about the phase jump inhibitor. You see, right now there really isn't the ability to create a "hard choke" at this point, just a "soft choke," because PJIs only delay fleets, they don't stop them from jumping. This is even true for a system which contains a vasari SB - it can be bypassed.

yeah your right, but what I was saying is at least now the fleets will now sustain a % damage when leaving a system with a hostile SB in it.

Reply #77 from Sins Forums Top

We're beta testers. The devs are using us to provide input on the game. Part of the beauty of sins is that the devs listen to the customers. We trust the devs to listen to our input and make a good decision on it, which so far they've done pretty much without exception.

(And to reiterate, I am now convinced that stationary starbases are not UP in the context of the rest of the faction, so this post is academic).

Point taken I can't argue with that.

I still think that at the start of this post he or she had a valid point, and he or she certainly didn't deserve to cop the vulger personal insult he or she recieved.

Star Control: Origins
Reply #78 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Agent, reply 20
I think a phase jump DENIER (not inhibitor) should be buildable on the SB itself.  Then it has to be faced, and taken out, before an enemy jumps further into a system.  Then their point about moving tec and advent SBs becomes nil.

This is a nice idea, although again, I'd like to see the races have something different, not just give every race the same thing.  Vasari don't need a denier like that at all; their phase stabilizer and movement balance the loss nicely.  Terrans could get an outright denier, forcing the enemy to come into each gravwell and fight the SB within its network of defenses.  And Advent?  Maybe they get an upgrade that lets all their SBs use their starbase inhibitors on ships coming INTO each gravity well; imagine if every ship in your attacking fleet took damage and lost antimatter just ARRIVING at a planet, before the fight even started.  Not only would that sort of penalty make it hard for you to bypass systems, it'd be a pretty hefty defensive bonus regardless.

Each of these should still require an upgrade (both research and a slot), and it's not something you'd build at every planet, but it'd be a great choke point force multiplier.

Reply #79 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting ratchit01, reply 2

Point taken I can't argue with that.

I still think that at the start of this post he or she had a valid point, and he or she certainly didn't deserve to cop the vulger personal insult he or she recieved.

Thanks ratchit : )

Reply #80 from Sins Forums Top

i wouldn't mind if for the advent and tec it took a cap ship or two to tow the starbase to a new position after it's built

Reply #81 from Sins Forums Top

I liked that only the Vasari Starbase moved, it made sense in terms that the Vasari are constantly moving on their exodus away from their unkown threat (Probably an ex Girlfriend or something)  And what the Advent and TEC lack in Mobility for Starbases, they make up for in sheer power.  I deployed a new starbase in an enemy gravity well with just a few frigates and a dunov against a Vasari Starbase nearly maxed (Guessing, hull/shields were full) and it was taken down pretty fast once my Starbase started firing.  The only way I think other races Starbases should be mobile, is using the planetary body of their host system as an Anchor, allowing them to orbit around like a moon, or Lock in Geo-Sync orbit.  Slowly for sure, with no ability to alter their proximity to their host planetary body.