Rebellion Mythbusters

Myth 1: Focus Firing gives you an advantage in light frigate battles

Fact 1: FF can actually hurt your dps as you will overkill enemy ships

 

Myth 2: Refineries are worthless

Fact 2: Refineries are actually more cost-efficient than trade ports if there are 6+ extractors near it

 

Myth 3: The trade ports on double TL Starbases makes TL the best eco faction

Fact 3: The SB trade ports take 82.5 minutes to pay for themselves, one of the worst ROI in the entire agme

 

Myth 4: The starting civilian techs (improved metal refinery, terran pop) should not be researched if you are frontliner

Fact 4: The metal and terran upgrades actually take sub-15 minutes to pay for themselves, though I don't recommend getting both

 

Myth 5: The higher dps of disciples will mean an advent player will outspam a TEC player

Fact 5: Cobalts have a better build time and higher health so the two factions are actually pretty even

 

Myth 6: Disciples kill vasari starbases more cost-efficiently than cobalts

Fact 6: This is quite an annoying cockroach myth that refuses to be stamped out. Check this replay:

50 Cobalts+Marza (300 supply) vs. Orky http://www.mediafire.com/?37dqqbqv9w9i0nj   43 cobalts+Marza survive... (265 supply)

62 Disciples+Prog (298 supply) vs Orky http://www.mediafire.com/?37dqqbqv9w9i0nj    29 disciples+Prog survive... (166 supply)

 

Myth 7: Bomber spam is the dominant strategy late game

Fact 7: Fighter spam is actually more common than bomber spam

 

Myth 8: Kanraks are the best LRM b/c PHASE MISSILES OP PLOX@@ NOOB@@@!!!!

Fact 8: Kanraks are actually the worst LRM (all early game vasari ships are shit compared to their counterparts). TEC LRM is actually the best "conventional LRM" (meaning it will beat the other two and it is the best against LF). Illums are also great because they rip apart the supposed counter, corvettes

 

Myth 9: Black Market minigame is worthless

Fact 9: If you successfully manipulate the BM and not just randomly buy/sell resources like a moron, you will gain a noticeable advantage over the other frontliner 

 

Myth 10: SOASE is 100% a game of skill

Fact 10: SOASE multiplayer is 10% random map position, 20% favor from the MD gods, 20% your teammates skill level, and 10% the specs of your PC. Only 40% of the game is the actual "skill" of you, the player

 

Myth 11: You should not build health/weapon upgrades until late-game

Fact 11: I did the math and it actually is more cost-efficient to research the tier 1 techs once you get to around 200 supply then build more ships

 

Myth 12: Diplomacy is useless

Fact 12: I've actually found diplomatic frigates to be useful as pseudo-scouts b/c of their invulnerability.

 

 

 

Potential Myth 1: Scouts allow for faster expansion than light frigates

Has anyone actually tested this? It seems to be the case but I learned a long time ago not to take anything for granted in sins.

Potential Myth 2: Trade/Social specializations are better than trade ports

Needs more data...

Potential Myth 3: Culture is cost-effective as mid-game front-liner

Needs more data...

Potential Myth 4: Deliverence Engine is worthless

Needs more data...

Potential Myth 5: LF+vettes is better than LF+LRM

Needs more data...

56,476 views 60 replies
Reply #1 Top

The problem with SinKillr isn't that he lies, it's that he mixes lies with truth.

Reply #2 Top

How am I trolling? This is a serious discussion, I would appreciate if you didn't derail it like you do the other topics.

Reply #3 Top

Potential Myth 1: Scouts allow for faster expansion than light frigates

Has anyone actually tested this? It seems to be the case but I learned a long time ago not to take anything for granted in sins.

 

Well this is an interesting one, many highly skilled players say with scouts it is faster to expand, but when I played online I never really used them for this purpose (only when my full fleet was needed somewhere really early in the game) and was never in disadvantage because of it, it takes much time for scouts to kill those long range and siege frigs while a smaller colonizing fleet of light frigs and corvettes seems to be much better and faster for me. Though I am not 100% sure, but not using scout expansion does not cause an extremely big disadvantage I can tell. And scouts are only good against light armor. If you leave some cobalts back to deal with the remaining ships you spare the money of platforms.

I think corvettes do the job better, and the cost of it is around the same, though you need to research them and in some cases making corvettes part of your fleet is not the best idea. And as eco corvettes are not really viable unless you are planning to build a titan earlier.

And using scouts requires too much micro for me, I dislike spending time ordering them around.

 

Potential Myth 3: Culture is cost-effective as mid-game front-liner

Culture is a nice extra as eco and as aggro as well, for only the price of 1 or 2 trade ports you gain a nice eco boost that will soon pay itself back, you may view one or two culture centers as +10% tax income, metal income and crystal income.

Though it might be a risky investment, you need like 800-100-175 for the research and 900-100-150 for the structure, but if you have more than 2-3 planets it will bring it's cost back relatively fast.

Oh and in the meantime it will force your opponent to build culture as well, or face losing part of his income to your culture.

I was surprised not many people used this besides me one year ago (even eco players ignored culture), but it seems this situation is the same nowadays based on your post.

 

Potential Myth 4: Deliverence Engine is worthless

It is not worthless, drowning your opponent in your culture and decreasing his allegiance with each shot can severely harm his eco, and he needs many culture centers to counter, again reducing opponent income, as he needs to scuttle trade ports.

Oh and the battle bonus of the Signal is nice as well, pair it with the mitigation bonus from advent culture and you will see, DE is not as useless as many people say. AL even has a nice damage boost from just being in own culture, though that is a lvl8 research.

 

 

Reply #4 Top

Myth 13: Flak is OP

Fact 13: Flak is not OP

Reply #5 Top

The beauty of the OP is that you can't view edits on it....HOW CONVENIENT...

Reply #6 Top

Ragnorak is a known troll but I think he is being quasi-serious here...

Reply #7 Top

His current OP is serious...his previous OP was not...his future OP will be god knows what...

Very convenient for him that edits for the OP are not viewable...this thread is troll bait and nothing more, he puts nonsense and then changes it to serious content so he can victimize himself for being called a troll...

Feed the troll if you'd like...

Reply #8 Top

In light of, shall we say, new information, I feel no problem sharing opinions on this matter...

Myth 1 -- For "big enough fleets" I agree...smaller fleets, of course you'd want to FF...I don't know what the threshold is though where you no longer want to FF...

Myth 2 -- If you take into account the bonus from trade length, refineries are at an even greater disadvantage...you probably want more like 8 or 9 nearby extractors early game and 11 or 12 late game, don't remember the exact number and don't feel like doing the math again...early game, you have to consider that the cost of the refinery tech is pretty relevant to the payoff time, so that alone may not make it worth going for...as the game progresses, the trade length bonus becomes stronger and stronger, putting refineries at more and more of a disadvantage......

Also, for Vasari your trade techs only improve trade so that's another reason to stick with trade...for TEC, the "trade" techs also affect refineries and IIRC the refinery tech is needed to eventually get pervasive, so in some situations refineries aren't so bad as TEC....

Myth 3 -- If you are already building the SB for some reason, the payoff time is not nearly as long...that's rare though, and I don't think trade SBs are generally used unless a team is doing really well and the eco player wants to have some fun...I don't find too many people thinking TEC eco is best because of trade SBs, it usually because of pervasive and development mandate....

Myth 4 -- TEC metal, Vasari resource, and TEC/Vasari terran I'd say aren't so bad, but definitely not something to get super early game...only civ tech worth getting I think at that point is modular architecture, others are a little risky...

Myth 5 -- Disciples also have a slight edge with being less metal heavy (which I find to be advantageous early game), but I agree it's basically a wash...if I had to pick one, I'd say disciples have the advantage, but it's at the point where cap choice, ability usage, and starting position will be far more relevant...

Myth 6 -- LOL

Myth 7 -- I agree...even though bombers can probably win if you focus on the carriers, corvettes really force you to spam fighters late game, especially if you are Vasari (since you have no AoE to counter corvettes with)...

Myth 8 -- While I agree kanraks are worst LRF for fleet battles, they do have an advantage when FFing on high level caps and titans...problem is, that's only true when you have fully upgraded weapons, which you wouldn't at the time you'd even be building LRFs....I don't think many people find them to be the best LRF though since rebellion, probably a myth more relevant in diplomacy...they do however have a superior construction time to LRMs...

As far as best LRF, I wouldn't give that title to LRMs so readily...in part it comes down to how you micro the ships, illuminators can force the LRMs to spend a lot of time turning around while the lum side beams are still doing damage...they (like kanraks) also have a big advantage over LRMs in terms of construction time...LRMs really only shine when it comes to focus firing, I think in all other circumstances illuminators are at an advantage over them...

Myth 9 -- You can, but most people (even skilled) don't bother...problem is often time, the time it sometimes takes for someone to buy the resources can sometimes nullify the advantage or at least relegate it to a long term rather than short term advantage...it just depends on the game and what factions are involved...

Myth 10 -- And may the minidumps be ever in your favor

Myth 11 -- I agree they are worth getting as well, and I'd prioritize weapons and armor over hull and shields since existing ships will have to rely on passive regen to get up to the new max shield/hull values....

Myth 12 -- LOL that is funny...I have never seen a human do that, ever....I feel like the scout abilities tec and advent have would better....

 

 

Reply #9 Top

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 8

In light of, shall we say, new information, I feel no problem sharing opinions on this matter...

Myth 1 -- For "big enough fleets" I agree...smaller fleets, of course you'd want to FF...I don't know what the threshold is though where you no longer want to FF...

Actually, focus firing is inefficient in almost all frigate-to-frigate battles. Even for <20 LF battles, you will lose against an auto-attack player. Test it if you don't believe me. The delay between switching targets with auto-attack is near instantaneous in the early game, so focus firing just adds needless micro and vulnerability to dodging. Even though the delay in auto-attack gets larger as the game goes on, the potential for overkill gets even larger. In fact, focus firing is only useful in target caps/titans and killing heavy cruiser/carriers (because of high health).


Myth 2 -- If you take into account the bonus from trade length, refineries are at an even greater disadvantage...you probably want more like 8 or 9 nearby extractors early game and 11 or 12 late game, don't remember the exact number and don't feel like doing the math again...early game, you have to consider that the cost of the refinery tech is pretty relevant to the payoff time, so that alone may not make it worth going for...as the game progresses, the trade length bonus becomes stronger and stronger, putting refineries at more and more of a disadvantage......

I think you forgot that refineries are affected by resource upgrades, which allows it to keep up with the trade length bonuses. Also, having a credit-heavy income dramatically increases use of the black market, meaning a substantial portion of your money is thrown down the drain.

Also, for Vasari your trade techs only improve trade so that's another reason to stick with trade...for TEC, the "trade" techs also affect refineries and IIRC the refinery tech is needed to eventually get pervasive, so in some situations refineries aren't so bad as TEC....

Myth 3 -- If you are already building the SB for some reason, the payoff time is not nearly as long...that's rare though, and I don't think trade SBs are generally used unless a team is doing really well and the eco player wants to have some fun...I don't find too many people thinking TEC eco is best because of trade SBs, it usually because of pervasive and development mandate....

No, alot of people are under the false impression the double SBs makes the Loyalists better than the Rebels at eco as well as the other races.


Myth 4 -- TEC metal, Vasari resource, and TEC/Vasari terran I'd say aren't so bad, but definitely not something to get super early game...only civ tech worth getting I think at that point is modular architecture, others are a little risky...

The TEC metal upgrades have one of the best ROI in the entire game, paying themselves off waaaaay faster than a trade port, barring a dead asteroid or ice planet start.

MModulararcchitecture iis another tthing to nnever build iin a game . That upgrade is crap for anyone that is not eco. If you do the math it will likely never pay itself off, even over the length of the entire game.


Myth 5 -- Disciples also have a slight edge with being less metal heavy (which I find to be advantageous early game), but I agree it's basically a wash...if I had to pick one, I'd say disciples have the advantage, but it's at the point where cap choice, ability usage, and starting position will be far more relevant...

I frequently find myself keeping up or even surpassing disciple spammers with my cobalts (number of ships, NOT total supply). Plus TEC gets super early repair platform so I would actually give them the advantage for the first 20 minutes.


Myth 6 -- LOL

You mind explaining? A "lol" isn't that constructive...

Myth 7 -- I agree...even though bombers can probably win if you focus on the carriers, corvettes really force you to spam fighters late game, especially if you are Vasari (since you have no AoE to counter corvettes with)...

Yes

Myth 8 -- While I agree kanraks are worst LRF for fleet battles, they do have an advantage when FFing on high level caps and titans...problem is, that's only true when you have fully upgraded weapons, which you wouldn't at the time you'd even be building LRFs....I don't think many people find them to be the best LRF though since rebellion, probably a myth more relevant in diplomacy...they do however have a superior construction time to LRMs...

As far as best LRF, I wouldn't give that title to LRMs so readily...in part it comes down to how you micro the ships, illuminators can force the LRMs to spend a lot of time turning around while the lum side beams are still doing damage...they (like kanraks) also have a big advantage over LRMs in terms of construction time...LRMs really only shine when it comes to focus firing, I think in all other circumstances illuminators are at an advantage over them...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't missile weapons omni-directional (meaning it doesn't have to to be facing targets to fire). Also, the last time I played the game lums didn't have back beams. They also have such a high crystal cost its unlikely you can get 20+ of them without a feeder.

Myth 9 -- You can, but most people (even skilled) don't bother...problem is often time, the time it sometimes takes for someone to buy the resources can sometimes nullify the advantage or at least relegate it to a long term rather than short term advantage...it just depends on the game and what factions are involved...

ALOT of frontliners buy metal from BM throughout the game, so if you are eco and carefully manage your metal supply it can pay dividends. The same thing applies to crystal in the early game because you're spending alot of it on planet development and tier 1 upgrades.

Myth 10 -- And may the minidumps be ever in your favor

I heard Unity Mass is effective in countering it.

Myth 11 -- I agree they are worth getting as well, and I'd prioritize weapons and armor over hull and shields since existing ships will have to rely on passive regen to get up to the new max shield/hull values....

No, Health is better than Armor in every single way. All tests confirm it. Weapon upgrades should be last because its not really beneficial to caps, buildings or ships not using that damage type.


Myth 12 -- LOL that is funny...I have never seen a human do that, ever....I feel like the scout abilities tec and advent have would better....

Diplomat ships make your opponent's ships waste time in chasing it down, only to have it turn invulnerable at the last second. Then you can jump your fleet in and kill the repair platforms/frigate factories because the enemy is out of position. Plus it might fool the opponent into thinking you are want better relations with them so there might be a chance for a truce. 

Reply #10 Top

Quoting Bartowski, reply 9
I frequently find myself keeping up or even surpassing disciple spammers with my cobalts (number of ships, NOT total supply). Plus TEC gets super early repair platform so I would actually give them the advantage for the first 20 minutes.

If Cobalts cost more supply than disciples and you have more ships then how do you not have more supply worth of LF?

E.g. You have 30 Cobalts (5x30 = 150) and your opponent has 25 disciples (4x25 = 100), you have more ships and more supply. In fact, if you have more Cobalts you must have more LF supply.

 

Quoting Bartowski, reply 9
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't missile weapons omni-directional (meaning it doesn't have to to be facing targets to fire). Also, the last time I played the game lums didn't have back beams. They also have such a high crystal cost its unlikely you can get 20+ of them without a feeder.

No, missiles still have a fire zone (i.e. front, left, right, or back) and can only be fired at targets in that arc.

 

Quoting Bartowski, reply 9
No, Health is better than Hull in every single way.

Wha? I thought health was hull.

Reply #11 Top

Quoting WOEaintME, reply 10

If Cobalts cost more supply than disciples and you have more ships then how do you not have more supply worth of LF?

E.g. You have 30 Cobalts (5x30 = 150) and your opponent has 25 disciples (4x25 = 100), you have more ships and more supply. In fact, if you have more Cobalts you must have more LF supply.

What I meant was that since cobalt build time since cobalts have a much better build time/supply ratio than disciples (24/5 and 22/4), its not that hard for a TEC player to keep up with an advent player in total number of ships, which favors the former because one cobalt is superior to one disciple.

I meant armor btw.

Reply #12 Top

Quoting Turchany, reply 3

Potential Myth 4: Deliverence Engine is worthless

It is not worthless, drowning your opponent in your culture and decreasing his allegiance with each shot can severely harm his eco, and he needs many culture centers to counter, again reducing opponent income, as he needs to scuttle trade ports.

Oh and the battle bonus of the Signal is nice as well, pair it with the mitigation bonus from advent culture and you will see, DE is not as useless as many people say. AL even has a nice damage boost from just being in own culture, though that is a lvl8 research.

Not really, considering most late game income comes from trade ports and the DE doesn't do anything to mitigate that. It can't even de-culture a planet all the way, even with 2-3 simultaneous shots. The nova can do all that and more which is why nobody builds DE online.

Reply #13 Top

Quoting Bartowski, reply 12
Not really, considering most late game income comes from trade ports and the DE doesn't do anything to mitigate that. It can't even de-culture a planet all the way, even with 2-3 simultaneous shots. The nova can do all that and more which is why nobody builds DE online.

 

It admittedly doesn't happen very often, considering most multiplayer games are pretty much decided in the early stages of the game, but I have seen a couple cases where the game drags out and an Advent sets up a massive culture planet in a good spot and then starts shooting with a DE from the back lines.  Late game Advent culture is already pretty ridiculous, and even if you can hold it back with your own culture, once you add the DE to the mix, worlds start dropping.  That is how you use a DE, you set up a situation where the enemy can't push your culture back, and you dig in and DE them to death.  By themselves, DE's aren't that dangerous, and as you say, even 2-3 don't do much.

Reply #14 Top

Quoting Bartowski, reply 9
Actually, focus firing is inefficient in almost all frigate-to-frigate battles.

Auto-attack isn't perfect...the LFs may often split their fire across 2 or 3 different targets, which is fine when you have 50 of them but when you only have 5...at some point, you want to make sure all your LFs are shooting at the same target, because if they aren't you are taking too much time to kill each ship...

Quoting Bartowski, reply 9
I think you forgot that refineries are affected by resource upgrades, which allows it to keep up with the trade length bonuses.

Refinery income is not affected by bonuses to extractor income, sorry...

Quoting Bartowski, reply 9
The TEC metal upgrades have one of the best ROI in the entire game,

I'm assuming frontliner since that is what was stated in the OP...so a frontliner probably has their HW (2 metal), a roid (average 1.5 metal), and a moon (IIRC average of 1.5 metal)...they could have quick access to some other things, but I don't want to give them too much since we are looking at a very early game situation...so, let's throw in another 1.5 metal....

Each extractor gives .4 resources, but then you also have allegiance...if the moon/roid are 1 jump away and this "other" planet is 2 jumps away (assume it's not a neutral), then we are looking at .4 x (2 x 100% + 3 x 90% + 1.5 x 80%) = 2.36 metal...the first metal tech is going to give you a 6.67% bonus, or .1574 metal....

The first metal tech costs 400 credits and 25 metal, or about 500 credits (it's early game, I'm willing to use a lowball 4 credit to resource conversion ratio)...meanwhile that .1574 metal is about .6296 credits...payoff time is 794 seconds, or ~13 minutes, on normal speed...of course, it could be slower or faster depending on your setup...you might get some nice neutrals and an extra roid or 2, but you also could be stuck with just the first roid/moon/HW for quite a while...

The terran population upgrade meanwhile is adding 21 more population, which comes out to .525 credits per second...tech is the same cost, so the payoff time is a little longer at 952 seconds, or ~16 minutes, on normal speed...of course, you have to consider that it takes time for that population to grow (210 seconds) so that adds about 105 seconds to your payoff time...generally going to be a longer payoff time than the metal, but it's more competitive if you don't have any easy grabs with metal or for some reason don't get your initial moon and/or roid...

Modular architecture saves 20% per level on the cost of extractors and factories....that comes out to saving 50 credits for each extractor or 120 + 32 x 4 = 248 credits per factory...tech is same cost as above, so either 2 factories or 10 extractors (or some combination thereof) makes the tech pay for itself...if you don't build any factories early on, you're going to need lots of easy grab planets (maybe a good barren/terran/desert and another roid/moon or two) to make the tech worthwhile...but, if you do build factories closer to your enemy, the tech easily pays for itself...

In short, the metal techs are probably always going to be decent...the terran techs aren't so bad, but not as good as the metal unless you get boxed in to just your HW and maybe one roid/moon or you get lucky with a nearby terran...the modular architecture is not nearly as good if you are close to enemy, but if you got distance and will be setting up factories closer to your enemy then it is the best to grab first...

I have no idea why you are comparing the metal upgrade to a trade port since we are talking about a frontliner....as for modular architecture, it does easily pay for itself, it just may or may not be superior to the metal and terran upgrades depending on how far your enemy is and what planets are nearby...

Reply #15 Top

Quoting Bartowski, reply 9
I frequently find myself keeping up or even surpassing disciple spammers with my cobalts (number of ships, NOT total supply).

Cobalts build in 22 seconds while disciples build in 20...yes, TEC have a slight advantage in construction time, but even if you were building non stop, you would only be able to build 10 cobalts for every 11 disciples...and since resources are also going to be a limiting factor, TEC is not going to be any better at spamming LFs than Advent...

Quoting Bartowski, reply 9
 Plus TEC gets super early repair platform so I would actually give them the advantage for the first 20 minutes.

Most advent are starting with 2 mil labs, so both TEC and advent are going to have no problem getting repair platforms early on....actually, TEC repair is inferior to Advent until you upgrade the ability, so actually in this regard the advantage is to Advent early on...

Quoting Bartowski, reply 9
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't missile weapons omni-directional (meaning it doesn't have to to be facing targets to fire). Also, the last time I played the game lums didn't have back beams.

Firing arcs have a wide angle, so those side beams actually can hit almost directly behind the lums...but we've already been through this before...

Quoting Bartowski, reply 9
They also have such a high crystal cost its unlikely you can get 20+ of them without a feeder.

And, we've been through this before too....maybe I'm just super magical, but I've done lum spam many times without any feed....so have a lot of other people...

Quoting Bartowski, reply 9
ALOT of frontliners buy metal from BM throughout the game, so if you are eco and carefully manage your metal supply it can pay dividends.

TEC frontliners, other factions not so much....as I said, it depends on what factions are in the game...if you are eco, it is probably worth playing at some point, but time is a resource as well and early game you really can't afford to have too many resources sitting on the market for even more than a minute....

Quoting Bartowski, reply 9
No, Health is better than Armor in every single way. All tests confirm it. Weapon upgrades should be last because its not really beneficial to caps, buildings or ships not using that damage type.

All tests do not confirm this...in fact, I don't think any do...5% hull and 1 point in armor are essentially the same, with the primary difference that armor becomes even more powerful when you factor in hull regen (whether passive or from repair abilities) since each armor point makes all existing hull more valuable...now, hull techs also help passive regen, so that is another plus for them, but it really depends on what your ships are doing at the time....

Armor will immediately buff all ships...HP upgrades will immediately raise the max HP of all ships, but they will have to rely on passive regen to bring their current hull levels up to maximum...if you are in battle and the fleet sizes are large, you would want armor since only newly built ships would benefit from the HP upgrades...if you are not in battle (or you are, but the fleet sizes are small), HP upgrades will be better...

Specifically for TEC, the lower hull upgrades give like 6% hull while the armor techs give like .75 armor...if you aren't in battle, the HP techs clearly would be better, but if you are in battle the same rules from above still apply -- that increase to max hull isn't going to help ships currently in the fight in a timely manner, only those built after you research the tech...

Quoting Bartowski, reply 9
You mind explaining? A "lol" isn't that constructive...

Could it be?  Nah........

 

 

 

 

Reply #16 Top

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 14
Auto-attack isn't perfect...the LFs may often split their fire across 2 or 3 different targets, which is fine when you have 50 of them but when you only have 5...at some point, you want to make sure all your LFs are shooting at the same target, because if they aren't you are taking too much time to kill each ship...

Have you tried testing it yet? This is what I thought as well until I tested it with 20 cobalts vs 20 cobalts.

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 14
Refinery income is not affected by bonuses to extractor income, sorry...

ok

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 14
Modular architecture saves 20% per level on the cost of extractors and factories....that comes out to saving 50 credits for each extractor or 120 + 32 x 4 = 248 credits per factory...tech is same cost as above, so either 2 factories or 10 extractors (or some combination thereof) makes the tech pay for itself...if you don't build any factories early on, you're going to need lots of easy grab planets (maybe a good barren/terran/desert and another roid/moon or two) to make the tech worthwhile...but, if you do build factories closer to your enemy, the tech easily pays for itself...

Double check your math on this. Im 100% sure double mod architecture cuts extractor cost from 250 to 150... The cost of both upgrades is 900+(4x75)=1200 

This means you need to build 12!!! extractors or 4+ factories in order to merely break even... How often do you build that many factories as frontliner in early game? I rarely build that many extractors as well, even more so If im playing a non-comp map.

Meanwhile, if you get both metal upgrades it pays itself off in around 13 minutes... and continues to increase your income throughout the whole game... Its simple really... modular architecture is only good for eco players...

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 14
In short, the metal techs are probably always going to be decent...the terran techs aren't so bad, but not as good as the metal unless you get boxed in to just your HW and maybe one roid/moon or you get lucky with a nearby terran

Ok glad you agree.

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 14
I have no idea why you are comparing the metal upgrade to a trade port since we are talking about a frontliner....as for modular architecture, it does easily pay for itself, it just may or may not be superior to the metal and terran upgrades depending on how far your enemy is and what planets are nearby...

The only reason I compared the metal upgrades to trade ports is just to provide people with a well-known scale for the relative ROI of the upgrades... most people know trade ports pay themselves off in 15 minutes so its a useful measuring tool...

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 15
Cobalts build in 22 seconds while disciples build in 20...yes, TEC have a slight advantage in construction time, but even if you were building non stop, you would only be able to build 10 cobalts for every 11 disciples...and since resources are also going to be a limiting factor, TEC is not going to be any better at spamming LFs than Advent...

The two metal upgrades allow a TEC player to spam cobalts non-stop, while an advent with inferior income probably has to stop 1-2 seconds every once in a while, which can add up a lot. Also I noticed in replays that even when players have good income, most of them forget to que up units continually so if you have even passable macro its possible to outspam them.

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 15
Most advent are starting with 2 mil labs, so both TEC and advent are going to have no problem getting repair platforms early on....actually, TEC repair is inferior to Advent until you upgrade the ability, so actually in this regard the advantage is to Advent early on...

Actually most advent players I've seen start two civ labs because of the early access to culture and ice/volcano planets. Greenhouse is tier 2 for the advent, which is a nice hidden plus. There are no worthwhile tier 1 military tec for the advent so this is probably why. You also seem to forget that TEC's improved upgrade is tier 2, same as the advent repair bay so advent doesn't have an advantage.

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 15
Firing arcs have a wide angle, so those side beams actually can hit almost directly behind the lums...but we've already been through this before...

Ok, im pretty sure lrm will beat lums in a straight up battle though, even with micro.

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 15
And, we've been through this before too....maybe I'm just super magical, but I've done lum spam many times without any feed....so have a lot of other people...

Lums cost 3 mil labs which is a pretty hefty investment. Add on the two civ labs and you can see why players would have trouble spamming them. Plus any decent TEC player will punish you soundly for this enormous investment in tech.

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 15
TEC frontliners, other factions not so much....as I said, it depends on what factions are in the game...if you are eco, it is probably worth playing at some point, but time is a resource as well and early game you really can't afford to have too many resources sitting on the market for even more than a minute....

Ok, I will admit the mini-game is rather time-consuming.

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 15
All tests do not confirm this...in fact, I don't think any do...5% hull and 1 point in armor are essentially the same, with the primary difference that armor becomes even more powerful when you factor in hull regen (whether passive or from repair abilities) since each armor point makes all existing hull more valuable...now, hull techs also help passive regen, so that is another plus for them, but it really depends on what your ships are doing at the time....

Armor will immediately buff all ships...HP upgrades will immediately raise the max HP of all ships, but they will have to rely on passive regen to bring their current hull levels up to maximum...if you are in battle and the fleet sizes are large, you would want armor since only newly built ships would benefit from the HP upgrades...if you are not in battle (or you are, but the fleet sizes are small), HP upgrades will be better...

Specifically for TEC, the lower hull upgrades give like 6% hull while the armor techs give like .75 armor...if you aren't in battle, the HP techs clearly would be better, but if you are in battle the same rules from above still apply -- that increase to max hull isn't going to help ships currently in the fight in a timely manner, only those built after you research the tech...

Test this and then come back to me... I did and 20 cobalts with the upgraded health beat 20 cobalts with armor...

Not sure why you ignored my point about weapons. In pure LF combat yes they are better than armor/hull but combine the capital ship factor and they are not nearly as good as them.

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 15
Could it be?  Nah........

Don't make me resurrect cat from the dead...

Reply #17 Top

Quoting Bartowski, reply 16
The only reason I compared the metal upgrades to trade ports is just to provide people with a well-known scale for the relative ROI of the upgrades... most people know trade ports pay themselves off in 15 minutes so its a useful measuring tool...
Quoting Bartowski, reply 16
Double check your math on this. Im 100% sure double mod architecture cuts extractor cost from 250 to 150... The cost of both upgrades is 900+(4x75)=1200

Both levels do, but I just used the first level of all these techs...second level is going to have slightly higher payoff time since it is more expensive....

Quoting Bartowski, reply 16
This means you need to build 12!!! extractors or 4+ factories in order to merely break even... How often do you build that many factories as frontliner in early game? I rarely build that many extractors as well, even more so If im playing a non-comp map.

As I said, it depends on distance between you and enemy...if you are far away you will almost certainly want to build 2 factories closer to the frontline...that means you really only need 6 or so extractors (built after you research tech) for it to pay itself off, and if you are far away then you should have no problem finding 6 extractors worth of things to colonize (that's basically 2 planets)...it's not something you always want to research, but it definitely has its place for frontliners...

Quoting Bartowski, reply 16
The two metal upgrades allow a TEC player to spam cobalts non-stop

Lol

Quoting Bartowski, reply 16
Actually most advent players I've seen start two civ labs because of the early access to culture and ice/volcano planets.

I strongly disagree with this...skilled advent only lead with culture if they are against a vastly inferior player or they have lots of room...Nayru is about the only exception to this...

Quoting Bartowski, reply 16
There are no worthwhile tier 1 military tec for the advent so this is probably why

Laser, shield, and hull upgrades are all worthwhile...you also can get purge vessels, though that's not normally a big consideration...unless you have lots of room for expansion or a really screwy map, Advent will always do better on front if they go with 2 military labs...that gives them military upgrades, repair, aerias, and lots of stat upgrades for ships...

Quoting Bartowski, reply 16
You also seem to forget that TEC's improved upgrade is tier 2, same as the advent repair bay so advent doesn't have an advantage.

A tier 1 tech and 2 tier 2 techs is more expensive than a single tier 2 tech...early on, Advent have advantage in this regard...only exception is if you go for 2 civ labs, but you should only be doing that if you have lots of room...and if you have lots of room, you can easily get 4 labs...

Quoting Bartowski, reply 16
Ok, im pretty sure lrm will beat lums in a straight up battle though, even with micro.

It's close...I don't remember exact results (like how many survive on winning side) to be honest...all I know is that in practice, construction times and ability to deal with corvettes/flak are more relevant...

Quoting Bartowski, reply 16
Test this and then come back to me... I did and 20 cobalts with the upgraded health beat 20 cobalts with armor...

They should if the upgrades were researched before the battle...but if you researched the upgrades after the battle already started, that might be more interesting results....

Quoting Bartowski, reply 16
Don't make me resurrect cat from the dead...

I don't think he plays anymore?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply #18 Top

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 17
As I said, it depends on distance between you and enemy...if you are far away you will almost certainly want to build 2 factories closer to the frontline...that means you really only need 6 or so extractors (built after you research tech) for it to pay itself off, and if you are far away then you should have no problem finding 6 extractors worth of things to colonize (that's basically 2 planets)...it's not something you always want to research, but it definitely has its place for frontliners...

I still don't think you understand my point about modular architecture. Yes, it is relatively easy to break even on the first upgrade cost, but that shouldn't be enough. Why would you research something that has a ROI of 0% over the course of the entire game when you can research the metal (or to lesser extent, the terran pop) upgrades where the derivative on the ROI increases at a constant rate? I notice that most games nowadays are played on comp maps where the distance between the frontliners' hw is at usually 3-4 so building an extra two factories is a waste. You also seem to forget that you can research the metal upgrades right off the bat with no additional scouting, but with the modarch that extra 20-30 seconds of scouting could cost you 2-3 extractors, further reducing the ROI.

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 17
Lol

Not sure what you mean by this "lol" comment... What i meant was that the two upgrades enable TEC to spam cobalts at a higher rate than an advent player...

 
Quoting Seleuceia, reply 17
I strongly disagree with this...skilled advent only lead with culture if they are against a vastly inferior player or they have lots of room...Nayru is about the only exception to this...
They is no way to put this... you are 100% completely wrong. I never see advent leading two military labs before civilian, its usually a combination of both or just all civilian.
 
Quoting Seleuceia, reply 17
Laser, shield, and hull upgrades are all worthwhile...you also can get purge vessels, though that's not normally a big consideration...unless you have lots of room for expansion or a really screwy map, Advent will always do better on front if they go with 2 military labs...that gives them military upgrades, repair, aerias, and lots of stat upgrades for ships...
Uhh what? Last time I checked shield upgrades were not worth getting. Plus advent ships has lower health compared to TEC and Vasari so hull is not as good as the other two factions. And who even builds aerias as frontliner against other TEC or advent?
 
Quoting Seleuceia, reply 17
A tier 1 tech and 2 tier 2 techs is more expensive than a single tier 2 tech...early on, Advent have advantage in this regard...only exception is if you go for 2 civ labs, but you should only be doing that if you have lots of room...and if you have lots of room, you can easily get 4 labs...
I almost completely disagree with this. One of the biggest advantages TEC has early game is their tier 1 repair platform. And four labs ia a pretty hefty investment unless there's some weird start position.
 
Quoting Seleuceia, reply 17
It's close...I don't remember exact results (like how many survive on winning side) to be honest...all I know is that in practice, construction times and ability to deal with corvettes/flak are more relevant...
Lrms are better at focusing firing than lums. Once they get to 30+ numbers they down a level 6 prog so quick you'll hardly have time to blink.
 
Quoting Seleuceia, reply 17
They should if the upgrades were researched before the battle...but if you researched the upgrades after the battle already started, that might be more interesting results....
Maybe its just me but I only research weapon/hull/armor upgrades in the early game when I'm out of combat or if I want to delay getting the next fleet upkeep...
 
Quoting Seleuceia, reply 17
I don't think he plays anymore?

Hence the "dead" part...
 
Reply #19 Top

Sigh....I try to give each account a chance in the hope that maybe, just maybe, things will change....

Reply #20 Top

If you don't think my responses are serious thats your problem. If anybody else is reading this I would love to hear your thoughts.

Reply #21 Top

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 17
They should if the upgrades were researched before the battle...but if you researched the upgrades after the battle already started, that might be more interesting results....

I think hull is only inferior if many of your ships already lost their shields, though I never really tested it, and I always grabbed the 4 hull upgrades and only after this the 2 armor ones, you don't really wantz more than 2 mil labs early.

 

Quoting Bartowski, reply 18
Maybe its just me but I only research weapon/hull/armor upgrades in the early game when I'm out of combat or if I want to delay getting the next fleet upkeep...

 

Just think about it, if you have a long construction queue, and you have some resources piled up, isn't it an advantage to upgrade your fleet even if your numbers are below critical? (Where a new ship would mean less than that particular upgrade).

I don't think being in combat severely handicaps hull upgrades.. Really, health regen will fill your ship's health in no time, it only matters if the ship has lost it's shield, though I don't remember how it works online, maybe all your ships are being targeted nowadays? It was long ago when I played against skilled people.

Oh, and hull upgrades make your capital ship way stronger, and that is a big advantage, considering you still have your shields up. Armor is good, but I always preferred hull upgrades as those are.. CHEAPER? lvl1 and lvl2 compared to lvl1 and lvl3, and if you don't have more than 2 mil labs you may see what I mean.

 

Quoting Bartowski, reply 20
I still don't think you understand my point about modular architecture. Yes, it is relatively easy to break even on the first upgrade cost, but that shouldn't be enough. Why would you research something that has a ROI of 0% over the course of the entire game when you can research the metal (or to lesser extent, the terran pop) upgrades where the derivative on the ROI increases at a constant rate? I notice that most games nowadays are played on comp maps where the distance between the frontliners' hw is at usually 3-4 so building an extra two factories is a waste. You also seem to forget that you can research the metal upgrades right off the bat with no additional scouting, but with the modarch that extra 20-30 seconds of scouting could cost you 2-3 extractors, further reducing the ROI.

 

If you are able to grab additional 1-2 volcanoes or ice, and some extra roids closer to the center (this scenario is not that impossible right?) then Modular will surely pay itself off considering you always have a volcan/ice and 1-2 dwarf/roid next to you. And getting those extra planets can mean your win even if it requires a risky investment, and modular can seriously help you reducing the costs.

My only problem with this research is the time you need to research it. Usually you already want to build several extractors even before the first level is finished, making payoff unsecure. You can colonize the two easy planets next to you in a minute, while modular takes much more time to be researched.

Reply #22 Top

Quoting Turchany, reply 21
I don't think being in combat severely handicaps hull upgrades.. Really, health regen will fill your ship's health in no time, it only matters if the ship has lost it's shield, though I don't remember how it works online, maybe all your ships are being targeted nowadays? It was long ago when I played against skilled people.

It has to do more with game speed...on faster game speed, fleet sizes get quite large quite fast and reinforcements come in quickly...a "50 vs. 50" LF fight is really ~50 starting LFs one each side with reinforcements coming in constantly, which is much different than if you simply pit 50 LFs vs. 50 LFs since in the latter case DPS (and thus fatality rates) will decrease over time...in the former, you are losing an LF every few seconds and will be doing so for the entire battle, meaning the original 50 LFs would all be dead within a few minutes...

Will the passive hull regen net you those increased max hull points?  It certainly will for some ships, but not for all of them...as a general rule, I'd be prioritizing hull over armor, but if I'm in the middle of a fight, I might be inclined to pick a tier 1 armor upgrade over a tier 2 hull upgrade just because it's a cheaper and faster to research tech and going to be about the same in effectiveness for a fleet that is quickly losing ships...

For TEC, the weaker armor techs (.75 per tech) sort of favor the hull techs...for Vasari, it is another matter since the armor techs (at least the earlier ones) give 1.0 per tech...

Quoting Turchany, reply 21
Oh, and hull upgrades make your capital ship way stronger, and that is a big advantage, considering you still have your shields up.

It's not uncommon for caps to be floating without shields, especially TEC and Vasari...if you throw in repair bays, I'd definitely rather have armor upgrades (if Vasari) than hull...as TEC, the weaker armor upgrades sort of make it a wash...

Quoting Turchany, reply 21
My only problem with this research is the time you need to research it. Usually you already want to build several extractors even before the first level is finished, making payoff unsecure. You can colonize the two easy planets next to you in a minute, while modular takes much more time to be researched.

I thought this myself, so I tested it to see if it was true....I have found that I generally can get both levels of any tier 1 tech before I've finished the extractors at my moon and roid....sometimes I'll only one or two of them built, sometimes none at all...so, for modular architecture, you can probably count on getting it before you flesh out the extractors at your moon and roid...personally, I choose whether to go with modular architecture based on 2 things:

1) If I lead with akkan, I will probably be sending it to map center while I play defensive with my fleet...this means I will be colonizing more planets, and thus will benefit greatly from modular architecture...it is true the akkan will get me a free extractor, but I'm also going to probably get an extra 2 or 3 extra roids/moons/barrens, so that's still a lot more new extractors...

2) If my moon has 3 roids, I'm more inclined to go for it...if it only has 1 or 2, I'll be less inclined to get modular architecture since I will have to get more planets for it to be worth it...

Quoting Bartowski, reply 18
You also seem to forget that you can research the metal upgrades right off the bat with no additional scouting, but with the modarch that extra 20-30 seconds of scouting could cost you 2-3 extractors, further reducing the ROI.

The primary criteria of my decision (detailed above) can be evaluated before your first lab is even built...in my experience, it is extremely rare as frontliner to be boxed in to only your roid and moon...you can pretty much count on getting at least 2 other planets, which means the tech will pay for itself...the opportunity cost is 2 levels of the tier 1 terran or tier 1 metal tech, but getting those techs 2 minutes later isn't going to kill you...hell, you won't even have more than your 2 HW metals when researching the metal techs anyway if you go for them first...

There's too many variables to really do a proper mathematical analysis, but I can guarantee you that the order you research all those techs is not going to make or break you...I usually do modular first if the above criteria are met, and then metal...otherwise, I'll just do metal...that's assuming that I start with civ lab as TEC, which I only do about half the time for the sake of variety...

 

 

 

Reply #23 Top

Quoting Bartowski, reply 18
Not sure what you mean by this "lol" comment... What i meant was that the two upgrades enable TEC to spam cobalts at a higher rate than an advent player...

Oh, I know what you meant....

Quoting Bartowski, reply 18
They is no way to put this... you are 100% completely wrong. I never see advent leading two military labs before civilian, its usually a combination of both or just all civilian.

Quoting Bartowski, reply 18
Lrms are better at focusing firing than lums. Once they get to 30+ numbers they down a level 6 prog so quick you'll hardly have time to blink.

Clearly we live in 2 different universes...

Quoting Bartowski, reply 18
Uhh what? Last time I checked shield upgrades were not worth getting. Plus advent ships has lower health compared to TEC and Vasari so hull is not as good as the other two factions.

Advent ships are 50/50 with hull and shields...because of armor, hull techs are still slightly better, but shields are most certainly still worth getting as Advent....just because an Advent shield tech is not as good as a TEC/Vasari hull tech doesn't mean it's still not worth getting...

Quoting Bartowski, reply 18
And who even builds aerias as frontliner against other TEC or advent?

You're right, we'll just completely ignore the fact that you have a 1/3 shot of facing off against a Vasari...33%, totally negligible...

Also, aeria minelaying tricks have their place, can be a total game changer...I've done it myself, and I've seen other skilled do it...it's not a mainstream strategy and it doesn't always pay off but you see it from time to time and it can be brutally effective...

Quoting Bartowski, reply 18
I almost completely disagree with this. One of the biggest advantages TEC has early game is their tier 1 repair platform. And four labs ia a pretty hefty investment unless there's some weird start position.

You live in an alternate reality, not all Advent do 2 civ labs to start with...if an Advent starts with 2 mil labs, they are just as good in position to get repair as TEC...the key difference is that initially the Advent repair is superior while eventually the TEC repair is superior...

Quoting Bartowski, reply 18
Maybe its just me but I only research weapon/hull/armor upgrades in the early game when I'm out of combat or if I want to delay getting the next fleet upkeep...

There are times I can fleet nonstop and still have resources to tech....why wouldn't I tech if I can and there's no real opportunity cost?

Quoting Bartowski, reply 20
If you don't think my responses are serious thats your problem. If anybody else is reading this I would love to hear your thoughts.

Dynamic IP must be a wonderful thing for you...

 

 

 

Reply #24 Top

Clearly Seleuceia lives in an alternate universe where illus are better at FFing than LRM.

Reply #25 Top

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 22
1) If I lead with akkan, I will probably be sending it to map center while I play defensive with my fleet...this means I will be colonizing more planets,

 

The Akkan gives you free extractors upon each colonization, further delaying the payoff of Modular Architecture.